this is the second time I’ve seen a post like this using this exact format
Lol. Have fun searching the cosmos for a world where conscious beings only take what they need.
BRB going to take all of the napkins, fire sauce, and salt packets next time I go to Taco Bell because “human nature”
I mean that’s literally why you have to ask for those things from behind the counter now. That literally proves my point.
No, it doesn’t lol. There are still open sauce packets and napkins. People don’t have endless greed for that which they don’t need, especially if their needs are already met by strong safety nets.
Anybody have any meme community recommendations that are funny and not just communist propaganda
Sorry, only fun communist memes here.
i could rant about this forever, i dont care how it is called, i just want everybody to work together, sharing the resources, to make a better world for everyone.
while capitalism is just everybody fighting for themself, trying to greedly obtain as much stuff as possible, trying to make their own lives better as first, constantly looking for the next grift to get more.
everybody has been scammed by some lie that competition is needed. Or that rich people are needed.
Honestly I don’t see what’s wrong with a mixed market economy
It depends on which aspect is principle, private ownership or public. All economies are “mixed,” even the DPRK has instances of private ownership in their special economic zones like Rason, but we can tell if a country is capitalist or socialist by which controls the commanding heights of industry in that country.
The Nordic countries, for example, have private ownership as principle. As a consequence, their safety nets are eroding, and they depend on imperialism to continue. Capitalism itself is unsustainable.
The PRC is socialist, on the other hand. Though it relies heavily on market mechanics, the difference is stark when it comes to long-term planning and development, and the gradual collectivization of production and distribution in an increasingly planned fashion has produced incredible results. Where the Nordics are declining, the PRC is rising rapidly.
We can’t perpetuate private ownership forever. It trends towards monopoly and enshittification. Even if it’s handy at low levels of development for rapid industrialization, it quickly loses steam and then monopolist mechanics come into play, at which point public ownership is far more effective. Socialism allows us to control this development, prevent its worst excesses, and harness that growth while smoothly transitioning it into a part of the planned economy.
The Nordic countries, for example, have private ownership as principle. As a consequence, their safety nets are eroding, and they depend on imperialism to continue.
I would say their mistake was putting so many chips on the future of fossil fuels. Sweden and Norway both derive enormous amounts of their state revenue from their state-run O&G companies. Venezuela tried a similar move under Chavez back in 2002. As the cost of producing gasoline has risen and the barrel rate has stagnated, their ability to self-finance a socialist state decayed.
Though it relies heavily on market mechanics, the difference is stark when it comes to long-term planning and development, and the gradual collectivization of production and distribution in an increasingly planned fashion has produced incredible results.
I would say the most pivotal policy of the Chinese state revolves around the condition that any business must be majority owned by local people. That includes patents. That includes physical capital. That includes intellectual property and commercial redistribution rights. The Chinese people own the Chinese economy. And this insourcing of legal ownership is what has resulted in the Chinese economic miracle.
By contrast, states like India and Indonesia continue to outsource much of the legal ownership of their work products to western banks and oligarchs. Similarly, the post-Soviet Eastern Bloc dissolved all its state institutions of domestic ownership and outsourced the rent-seeking portions of their economy abroad. The result has been a steady flow of wealth out of the country and a spreading poverty at home.
While westerners often debate the finer points of socialism in theory, the socialist movement in practice has always been first and foremost anti-colonial. Commanding your own wealth, whether you’re a North Korean adherent of Juche trying to build a fully self-reliant industrial interior or a Cuban trying to do Caribbean mutualism with your island as a center of medical R&D, is at the beating heart of Actual Existing Socialism.
The Nords did do that in the 1960s/70s with energy nationalization. But they failed to expand public ownership to non-petro sectors.
That’s a good point, but it’s also important to recognize the role of private capital in the failures of the Nordic economies. Venezuela is more principled, and doesn’t depend on imperialism either, unlike the Nordics.
Venezuela’s more brown and lacks the benefit of the Cold War to play both sides against the middle. I don’t think its a matter of principles. Maduro has been more than happy to broker deals to lift sanctions and reopen international exports with capitalist states, he just hasn’t had the same opportunity to make deals that the Nordic States have had with BP, Shell, and Exxon.
Hell, the Chavezmos didn’t even try to nationalize their economy. They built everything socialist out in parallel with the spare oil cash. At least the Nords had the good sense to nationalize health care and education.
Being forced into being more correct out of circumstance has also led to more developments of actual ideological growth.
How do you force people to give according to their ability? What if they don’t want to?
That’s not what people mean by saying “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” There’s no Robin Hood figure robbing people at gunpoint. What it means is that all of production and distribution is collectivized and run according to a common plan in order to satisfy everyone’s needs.
That’s a pretty rose tinted view. It is, generally speaking, “collectivized” at gunpoint.
Yes, capitalist property is hostorically siezed by the people through force, just like feudalism was ended by force. I don’t have rose tinted glasses, I know force is required, I just see it as necessary and the outcome extremely positive.
That’s a fine perspective to have. But it is the textbook definition of robbing someone at gunpoint.
They have something of value that you want, you don’t want to exchange said value for it, so you take it by force… at gunpoint.
Maybe there’s a moral justification for that. Maybe you think they don’t deserve it, or you need it more, or you think their ownership of it represents it’s own form of theft… But they’re definitely getting robbed at gunpoint.
Capitalists already steal value from workers by paying them less than the value they create. One short bout of “theft” to take back what was stolen over centuries isn’t really theft, it’s returning what’s owed.
This question comes from the “what if everyone just wants to do nothing” to justify the existence of a system in which if you are not able to work you die.
Everyone is guaranteed a job, so if they don’t want to then they will just have less money to go around, or maybe they wouldn’t even need to if what they did is automated. However, regardless of whether they work or not, they are guaranteed food and housing. So they just get to do whatever they want. In a communist system someone livelihood is not tied to a job.
What happens when someone doesn’t pay taxes today?
They get elected President.
These propagandized individuals are emotionally manipulated to hate communists and see them as dangerous by capitalist institutions, but they are in no way, shape, or form exposed to the ideas that communists express in an impartial manner.
I’d argue that it is rare that understanding is properly conveyed through labels. People attach their own understanding to labels - and these propagandized individuals are conditioned to believe they understand communists, but in reality they are just trained to dehumanize and hate communists. They don’t understand.
So, how does this dynamic shift?
What seems to work best is being honest, consistent, and up-front about our views. We must never tire of explaining the same basic concepts. When orgs try to distance themselves from socialist countries, or labels like “communist,” they come across as dishonest when their views are exposed, backfiring.
When the conditions of capitalism and imperialism decay, more and more of the working classes become less opposed and more open to socialism and communism. Our job is to try to bring these newly radicalized people to proper orgs and proper study. I made an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list for just such a purpose.
I argue that the first steps to creating broad coherence with others involves encouraging independent thought/critical thinking, emphasizing our shared humanity and desire for a better world for everyone, and subtly working to reduce polarization (such as conditioned fear/hate/dehumanization of others) in any way possible.
I understand this is a ML space and I respect your ideology, but I have to point out that it isn’t the only socialist ideology - and it’s a fairly polarizing one at that. What could be done to help bridge the gap among socialists, even just here on the fediverse?
Critical thinking is necessary, but that’s not really something we socialists have any power over in the broad populace. It’s largely a product of education, combined with the lessons being in a given class teaches us. I try to do my best to explain that I want a better world, but that also requires being honest and forthright with me being a communist, and explaining exactly what that means and why.
As for Marxism-Leninism, I’d argue its controversy mostly stems from it being the branch with the most actual existence in the real world. Bridging the gap to other socialists, for me, involves demystifying it and trying to explain the basics of it theoretically. I try to explain what I can, where and when I can, and that has seen a good deal of success.
Critical thinking is necessary, but that’s not really something we socialists have any power over in the broad populace.
I believe that we all have the power to educate others to think for themselves and to think critically. It may not be as substantive and impactful as we’d like from a single interaction, but it’s nothing to write off. I feel that there is a lot of untapped potential for all of us to realize, especially with the use of modern technology.
The internet is an truly an amazing thing for humanity. I just have to point out the work r/LateStageCapitalism has done to educate and inform others over the years. Many people have likely been radicalized due to their work (i.e. encouraged to think for themselves and see beyond mainstream narratives) and I’m pretty sure it’s a ML space, as well.
It’s easy to see that traditional institutions are losing trust broadly and that mainstream media is falling off. The narrative seems very difficult for those currently in power to both spread and control the perception of.
I try to do my best to explain that I want a better world, but that also requires being honest and forthright with me being a communist, and explaining exactly what that means and why.
I value your example and honesty. I have witnessed many interactions between you and other people on the fediverse and I applaud your efforts and diplomacy.
As for Marxism-Leninism, I’d argue its controversy mostly stems from it being the branch with the most actual existence in the real world.
Most people here on the fediverse loosely agree on what needs to change, but most of the disagreement I feel comes from the methodology of bringing about that change. I’d say there is a time and place to discuss methodology or introduce people into specific ideology, but getting people to realize a better world is possible is something we can all work broadly work towards and I feel there is a lot of value in that sort of action.
I absolutely agree that online spaces are an excellent way to educate and radicalize. Agitprop is extremely useful, in fact I support trying to move people from corporate media to federated, FOSS media as we can’t be as easily censored here. I don’t think skills like critical thinking can be taught online without the person already trying to develop such skills, but agitprop helps them reconsider if they need to research more.
As for the fediverse, I think the big 3 positions are anarchism, liberalism, and Marxism-Leninism, at least on Lemmy. Some people sit on the outskirts of those, but ML has a supermajority among Marxists here, as an example. I think it’s best therefore to be upfront and not try to cage my views, obscure them, etc, but to try to meet people where they are at and gently push them to where they can learn more if they so choose. That’s the best way I can think of.
Thanks for engaging, I largely agree with you and really appreciate your responses. I’m glad we finally had the opportunity to talk.
No problem, thanks for the convo!
So, how does this dynamic shift?
One key point is to break conformism. People were and are brainwashed to hate “communism” on top of being brainwashed to conform to society. To hate the enemy is a recurring theme in the system, in our case it takes the form of communists but it can be anything else.
Communist centrally planned economies suck. That’s how you end up with panicking factory and farm managers exaggerating their production to the state to not end up in the gulag. A better alternative could be petitioning the government for money to start a worker-owned co-op that produce things at quantities that people would actually want. Do that and keep the government democratic composed of different parties with socialist mindsets at their heart and things should be better for all without the baggage of authoritarianism.
Central planning has been remarkably effective at achieving economic growth while directing production and distribution to satisfy the needs of the many. The USSR and PRC are examples of some of the fastest growing economies in the world, and are both responsible for the largest eradications of poverty in history.
Cooperatives are cool in the context of capitalism, or early stages of socialism (they are prominent in the PRC currently). However, as they grow, the profit motive forces enshittification and predatory practices, which is why producing for the purposes of needs over profits is superior.
As for multi-party systems, it’s generally better to practice unity and avoid factionalism and splitting. Western democracy is notoriously terrible at providing a cohesive system supported by the many, while socialist democracies like the PRC are supported by over 90% of the population.
Communist centrally planned economies suck.
Oh, hey. I know this one. It’s the reason we’re not allowed to do anything about Climate Change.
Imagine what will happen if a President Elizabeth Warren bans fracking in places like Texas, North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania; in Texas alone, by some estimates, 1 million jobs would be lost. Overall, according to a Chamber of Commerce report, a full ban would cost 14 million jobs—far more than the 8 million lost in the Great Recession. And the environment itself would be somewhat of a loser in this game—natural gas has done more to reduce emissions than all the greens’ efforts.
Across the world, green-backed policies have hurt the working class far more than the affluent rich who most enthusiastically embrace them. The militant Extinction Rebellion—which the online magazine Spiked has described as “an upper-middle-class death cult”—has tried to disrupt commuters in Britain in their drive to “save the planet” but has earned more angry contempt than support from harried workers. Though cast by the media as heroic outsiders, greens have historically clustered in elite academic, nonprofit, media, and corporate sectors. The influential Limits to Growth, published in 1972 by the Club of Rome, was backed by major corporate interests, led by Fiat’s Aurelio Peccei. The authors’ long-term vision, based on the notion that the planet was running out of resources at a rapid rate, was to create “a carefully controlled balance” that would restrict growth, particularly in advanced countries.
We aren’t allowed to plan anything. We aren’t allowed to regulate anything. We aren’t allowed to prosecute anyone above a certain income level. We aren’t allowed to unionize or collectively bargin, especially if we’re public employees. We’re not even allowed to directly vote for the office of the Presidency, because that’s Populism and we all know what happens when popularly elected governments start managing their own economic future.
A better alternative could be petitioning the government for money
Ah yes. Just ask your team of highly placed lobbyists to get Free Money From The Government to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. When has that ever gone wrong?
Pretty sure people hate tankies because they defend dictators like Putin and Jinping, not because they want socialism.
When you start denying genocide, it doesn’t matter how good your economic policy is.
Anyway, Slava Ukraini.
Anyway, are you unaware of the fascist origins of “Slava Ukraini,“ or are you using it despite knowing better?
Communists critically support Russia insofar as they oppose western imperialism and ally with socialist countries and the global south. Communists support popular leaders like Xi Jinping, and the PRC in general, because of the tremendous strides they’ve made in uplifting the working classes in their countries. Not sure what you’re referring to here by saying “genocide denial.”
The PRC has a dictator that has written himself into the country’s constitution and has a profound level of abject poverty, with 20% of the population living on less than $7/day. It is better than it was in the 70s, though, back when they were actually communist. Now they have a massive private sector. Weird that the two changes line up, right?
The Uyghurs, btw.
The Uyghurs, btw.
Its so crazy to see liberals insist that Uyghur Genocide is a big problem that requires US military intervention but the Israeli Very Legal And Good Police Action Against Hamas For October 7th is going great and actually Palestinians should be thanking the IDF for all their hard work.
Like, what even is your definition of genocide anymore? I’ve seen liberals insist that the Uyghurs are being brutalized by a Chinese government building schools that teach Mandarian in the rural corners of Xinjiang. I’ve seen liberals insist a Taiwanese BDSM porn was proof that China’s police state was in violation of a dozen different treaties and conventions. I’ve seen Tibetian life expectancy double over the last 40 years and then received an earful about how the Tibetian ethnic government was doing terrorism by importing modern Chinese TVs, Radios, and Computers with Mandarian language broadcasts into the region.
Meanwhile, you’ve got liberals insisting Greta Thunberg is the antichrist when she tries to deliver baby formula to the Gaza shoreline.
Absolute obliteration of the western understanding of the term. Israelis tortured an orthopedic surgeon to death and there’s absolutely no news coverage of it. Bolsonaro butchers native people in Brazil so he can clear cut their rainforests and the liberals still back him. The Philippines is just an endless string of police actions against union organizers and nobody cares. But Kenya gets a new hospital and that’s Chinese genocide in West Africa.
- I’m not a liberal, I’m a democratic socialist
- I didn’t say we needed to invade China, but good to see your response to genocide is whataboutism, that good old Russian misinformation tactic seems to be alive and well
- fuck Israel, fuck Hamas, fuck the Arab league, and fuck the IDF.
I’m not a liberal, I’m a democratic socialist
fuck Israel, fuck Hamas, fuck the Arab league
Okay, but how can I be racist if I hate everyone in the Middle East, huh? Huh?!
I don’t hate everyone in the middle east, I hate warmongers all over the globe.
Are you saying everyone in the middle east is part of these organizations dedicated to genocide? Pretty fuckin’ racist, man.
I don’t hate everyone in the middle east
Name one good Arab.
Are you saying everyone in the middle east is part of these organizations
I’m saying you know virtually nothing about the region, you’re just regurgitating the bigotry you’ve been force fed since kindergarten.
You’re repeating liberal narratives and attacking socialist democracies, so it’s understandable that you’re being identified as a liberal.
China and Russia aren’t socialist, if they were socialist then the workers would own the means of production.
They’re both just capitalist oligarchies with dictators who disappear their enemies and fake elections.
China is socialist, public ownership is the principle aspect of its economy and controls the commanding heights of industry. Even if you’re (wrongly) defining socialism as cooperative ownership, the PRC has one of the largest cooperative sectors in the world, though it’s subservient to their public sector. Huawei is an example of a cooperative. They have real elections and real democracy.
Russia is a capitalist country, yes. It’s supported insofar as they align themselved with socialist countries and the global south, as well as having increasing numbers of those supportive of returning to socialism.
if they were socialist then the workers would own the means of production
Google “China Negative List Foreign Investment”. You might learn something about how Chinese federal laws guarantee domestic ownership of property and titles and understand why so much of the wealth generated within China remains within the Chinese working class.
They’re both just capitalist oligarchies with dictators
Is there a country in exist that you believe is Actually Existing Socialism, or are you going to shove your fingers in your ears and insist SEOs aren’t real, state central planning isn’t happening, democratic elections don’t count, and Marx didn’t say anything about the socialist transition in his writings.
The Uyghurs, btw.
btw, previously:
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.
The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same map” imperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.
Almost no predominantly-Muslim country buys the Uyghur genocide narrative, because they know it’s bullshit, because they talked to the Uyghurs themselves.
https://twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578003299827171330 #HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.
- The Uyghur Human Rights Project is a product of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is the American government’s main regime change NGO.
- A Reddit AMA Claiming To Be A Uyghur Quickly Exposes A CIA Asset Slandering China
- The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified
- Uyghur genocide allegations
- American Debunks All Major Western Propaganda on Uyghurs and Xinjiang
- US-Funded Uyghur Activists Train as Soldiers of Empire
- The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
Hello I am from turkey and there is a constant uygur propaganda here. Uygurs are turks so turkish nationalists always say that “palestine is not that important, our turkish brothers are being genocided. You traitors are always side with arabs and never with turks”
Actually most of the uyghurs are jihadist and some of them have joined isis at syria. At the past jihadist uyghurs were driving their cars onto chinese people to kill them. I had twitter evidence videos about it but i closed my accounts.Some of them certainly are Wahabi-aligned jihadists. If most in Syria are, that’s news to me, but I’m sure that few in China are.
most of these are jihadist nevertheless if they are wahabi-aligned or not. There is a new strong movement among yough turkish people called “secular nationalists”. they ate mostly racist, kemalist and self identified seculars, anti arabisc people. Because to them arab = islam.
Any uyghur is more muslim and jihadist than any turkish jihadist but they like to says uygurs are important palestinians are not.
As an atheist since 2017 pro-kurdistan socialist turk this is a propaganda I am NOT falling for.Any uyghur is more muslim and jihadist than any turkish jihadis
Perhaps, of the Uyghurs you’ve met, this is true, but how many native-Xinjiang Uyghurs have you met? This sounds like a gross over-generalization. I’m sure that some of them are as atheist as you, me, and the CPC.
Xi Jinping is a popularly supported and democratically elected leader. China has eliminated absolute poverty, and year over year is making rapid strides in improving living conditions across the board thanks to their socialist system. They never stopped being a socialist country led by communists, they pivoted strategy.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized:
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
And no, China is not commiting genocide. The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.
I also recommend reading the UN report and China’s response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.
Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time as well. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this. Even with all of the real complexities, though, nothing material measures up to claims of genocide.
Xi Jinping is a popularly supported and democratically elected leader
Lol
Anyway, that’s a lot of words to say they lifted urban populations out of poverty by embracing market economics while ignoring the existence of rural populations.
I literally linked The Metamphosis of Yuangudui, a formerly extremely poor rural village. The Poverty Eradication Program was focused on the rural areas. They use controlled markets to govern the medium and small firms while relying on massive state owned enterprises to form the backbone of their economy, which has allowed them to directly uplift those in rural areas left behind by the rapid advances of urban industrialization.
Some of the things about the Uyghur genocide are lie btw. Like “china has gulags for uyghurs”. China has education camps for people indeed but it is being solely for uyghurs is a blantant lie told by the media.
Any crime that is against humanity is unacceptable. I am telling this to mean “not everything you see objectively, without its propganada value is true” and not to mean "uygur genocide is good i am a nazi asshole turkophobic/uyghurphobic ".
Xi Jinping is not a dictator by any stretch of the word. The Communist Party of China enjoys some of the highest government approval rates in the world, by a long shot, according to western sources:
Notice how Russia’s government approval rate is low. As a tankie myself, this is easily explained by the fact that they’re not communists, and in fact the government is shitting on everything that communism did in the region in the past century. Ukraine had no war with Russia during Socialism, and in fact was saved from Nazi Extermination and thrived under Soviet Rule.
Since you care so much about Ukrainians:
Surely, seeing the horrifying demographic crisis taking place in Ukraine for rhe past 35 years coinciding with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, you condemn its contemporary capitalist government and want socialism back? If so, welcome aboard, comrade
Okay, but have you considered that the 90% of those 1.3B Chinese residents who like their government and want to keep it are simply brainwashed, ignorant, or stupid?
What if White People simply know better? What if there’s some kind of burden White People carry, where they’re socially obligated to go all around the world and politely inform the native populations that their lives are Bad Aktuly and they need to do things the White Way? What if imperialism is a moral imperative, because White People are just better at doing government than their non-White Peers?
Have you considered that, though? I’m just being realistic! I have science! Read the Bell Curve! Look at the brain pans! The Slavic Skull simply cannot contain the ideas necessary for a liberal democracy, so we have to bomb them until they behave. If you suggest otherwise, you’re actually doing genocide by not invading them.
Okay, but have you considered that the 90% of those 1.3B Chinese residents who like their government and want to keep it are simply brainwashed, ignorant, or stupid?
Silly tank E. The thought police, which are totally real (trust me bro), will come after any who dare express dissent. This is why we enlightened westerners with our Enlightenment™ values need to support the US invasion of China across the Taiwan Strait while also pretending it was actually China who struck first (just like the heckin’ unwholesome Vietcong 😡 did at the Gulf of Tonkin) and that Taiwan is actually a sovereign state fighting off an imperialist invader instead of a puppet government for the wholesome keanu chungus defenders of democracy.
Slobber Tie Won! Down with Zizzy Ping!
I see through your sarcasm. This is a Reddit-tier bannable offense. -100 Credit Score Points. Don’t make me report you to your landlord.
Gotta love tankie cope graphs. “approval rating” in a country where dissent is criminal? Seems legit.
An approval rating is given for Russia too, with much stricter “criminal dissent” laws than China. Do you suspect that the western institution which made this graph is evil CPC propaganda? This data is literally portrayed in Statista, it doesn’t get more western capitalist than that.
Now, don’t forget I’m waiting for your condemnation of the capitalist atrocities against the Ukrainian population since 1990. Otherwise, to other commenters, you may appear as a dishonest propagandist leveraging Ukrainian suffering only to condemn things you already stood against.
Dissent isn’t criminal, undermining the socialist system is. Speak with Chinese citizens yourselves, the majority are proud of their country and enjoy the system they’ve been collectively building for themselves.
Oh, I have. What’s really fun is talking to Chinese expats who no longer fear government reprisal. I did a lot of interviews as part of a thesis on the concept of a social panopticon and panoptic influence.
Only speaking to expats and not actual citizens is like talking only to Cuban exiles about Cuba and not Cubans themselves.
Chinese citizens will only criticize their government when they’re 100% sure it’ll never get back to the government, and that trust is extremely difficult to achieve because they are absolutely terrified of their government’s ability to influence even their closest friends and family.
If you honestly believe there’s no public dissent because everyone just loves their oligarchs so much… I don’t know what to say. That’s just fully stupid.
Citation needed, otherwise this is just chauvanism. You just pulled all of this right out of your ass. China doesn’t have oligarchs, they have administrators and government officials, and the CPC itself has over 100 million members.
When you start denying genocide, it doesn’t matter how good your economic policy is.
Perfect example of propagandized individuals hating communists because of propaganda.
I deny lots of genocides. For example, when Elon Musk talks about the “white genocide” I deny that. But somehow libs have gotten it in their heads that claims of genocide get to bypass all standards of evidence and fact-checking, because if you don’t immediately accept it without evidence, it means you’re a genocide denier, a bad person, basically a fascist who shouldn’t even be engaged with (conveniently averting the need to provide evidence). The state is more than happy to exploit this nonsense by putting out claims of genocide with zero credible evidence, because they know you’ll do this.
Evidence suggesting a Uyghur genocide in China’s Xinjiang region comes from several documented sources and is frequently characterized as crimes against humanity by international bodies and governments. The evidence includes: Mass Detention: Reports of over one million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims arbitrarily detained in a vast network of internment camps and prisons since 2017. Survivor Testimony: Former detainees report being subjected to abuse, torture, sexual violence (including alleged rape and gang rape), indoctrination, and harsh conditions. Forced Population Control: Evidence of a systemic campaign to drastically reduce birth rates among Uyghurs. This includes reports of forced sterilizations, forced contraception, and forced abortions. Statistics show a steep decline in birth rates in predominantly Uyghur regions. Forced Labor: Accounts detail the forced transfer of detainees from camps into factory work, a system that extends throughout Xinjiang and into other provinces. Cultural and Religious Persecution: Systematic efforts to destroy Uyghur cultural heritage. This involves the destruction or damage of mosques and religious sites, and the forced separation of hundreds of thousands of Uyghur children from their families into state-run boarding schools. Mass Surveillance: The Chinese government uses sophisticated technology and in-person monitoring (like mandatory “homestays” by Han Chinese citizens) to control and monitor the Uyghur population. Official Documents and Satellite Imagery: Leaked Chinese government documents, known as the “Xinjiang Police Files,” and satellite imagery of detention facilities and destroyed cultural sites are used to corroborate survivor and researcher reports. International Classification Genocide: The United States and the parliaments of several countries (including Canada, the UK, France, and others) have formally recognized the situation as genocide and/or crimes against humanity. The core legal argument is the “measures intended to prevent births within the group” and other acts committed with the alleged intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part. Crimes Against Humanity: A 2022 assessment by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that the “serious human rights violations” in Xinjiang “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.” Amnesty International has also made a similar finding. The Chinese government vehemently denies all accusations, asserting that the facilities are vocational training centers and that their policies are necessary for counter-terrorism and poverty alleviation. Would you like to know more about the legal definition of genocide under international law?
No, I would like actual sources.
Since you asked for concise information, here are the key sources that provide evidence for the situation in Xinjiang:
- Intergovernmental & Governmental Reports
- UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Assessment (2022): OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China. This report concluded that the violations “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”
- U.S. Department of State Reports: Annual reports on human rights and religious freedom, which have formally declared China’s actions as genocide and crimes against humanity since 2021.
- Parliaments and Government Bodies: Formal declarations or non-binding motions passed by the parliaments of several countries (including the UK, Canada, France, and others) recognizing the situation as genocide or a serious risk of genocide.
- Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
- Amnesty International: Major reports, such as “Like We Were Enemies in a War”: China’s Mass Internment, Torture, and Persecution of Muslims in Xinjiang (2021), based on first-hand survivor testimonies, satellite imagery, and data analysis.
- Human Rights Watch (HRW): Numerous reports and updates documenting violations, including arbitrary detention and cultural persecution.
- United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) Reports: Reports like “To Make Us Slowly Disappear”: The Chinese Government’s Assault on the Uyghurs analyzing evidence against the legal standard for crimes against humanity.
- Academic & Investigative Research
- Dr. Adrian Zenz’s Work: Extensive research and publications, often based on leaked Chinese government documents, population statistics, and policy papers, which detail the forced sterilization and birth control campaign.
- Associated Press (AP) Investigations: Reports based on government statistics and interviews with ex-detainees and family members, particularly covering forced birth control and sterilization.
- Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI): Reports based on satellite imagery and open-source intelligence that have mapped the extensive network of detention and re-education facilities, as well as forced labor transfers.
- Primary Evidence
- Survivor/Witness Testimony: Accounts from former detainees, camp instructors, and Uyghurs in exile detailing torture, rape, political indoctrination, and forced separation from families.
- Leaked Official Documents: Includes files known as the “China Cables,” the “Karakax List,” and the “Xinjiang Police Files,” which provide internal policy directives and detailed mechanisms of the mass detention system.
- Satellite Imagery: Used to corroborate the existence, size, and expansion of the detention and re-education facilities. Would you like a link to a specific report, such as the UN OHCHR assessment?
Can I also get a recipe for chicken noodle soup?
You just asked an AI to assemble a list of sources, which you haven’t actually read or examined. Now I’m expected to go through each of them, putting in substantially more work in order to refute them. Work which you will most likely disregard anyway. You didn’t even bother to provide links, so apparently I’m supposed to hunt these documents down myself.
Give me two to three sources, that you have actually read, that specifically call it a genocide, that don’t come from the US government (or other Western governments), and also don’t rely on far-right crackpot Adrian Zenz.
I gave you the effort I thought you deserved 👍
if you don’t immediately accept it without evidence, it means you’re a genocide denier, a bad person, basically a fascist who shouldn’t even be engaged with (conveniently averting the need to provide evidence).
As usual, by failing to accept a claim made without evidence, I have proven that I don’t “deserve” real evidence. Funny how that works, isn’t it? I mean, if you think about it, if you were wrong, you’d never find out, since you never seriously look at the evidence.
Some of us actually practice something called, “critical thinking.”
Did you ask an AI? You’re prominently featuring Adrian Zenz, a paid propagandist for the Victims of Communism foundation that has been caught fabricating evidencd and lying numerous times. He claims China is the antichrist and that he was sent by God to stop them. This is a farce.
I gave you the effort you were worth 🤷
I am so shocked you claim the person saying the thing you don’t like is a capitalist pig-dog liar
Here’s his page on the Victims of Communism website. The Victims of Communism Foundation is a US State Department created propaganda outlet, and Adrian Zenz in particular has been caught lying and fabricating evidence numerous times. You’re upholding a US State Department funded, far-right Christian nationalist, anti-communist propagandist. It’s time to turn off Fox News.
I’m so shocked that you’re completely dismissing the possibility that Zenz is a capitalist pig-dog liar, when it’s very obvious to anyone who knows anything about him that he is.
people hate tankies because they defend dictators
Broke: Defending Dictators
Woke: Regime Change
Around here we don’t fuck with Tankies. We only take you seriously if you’re on an aircraft carrier that just finished carpet bombing in the Middle East.
Me when I get so mad that someone doesn’t like Xi Jinping that I prolapse
When your country is shit, that’s all you can really think about.
Y’all are both childish
Tankies are just authoritarians wearing a leftist outfit. It doesn’t matter what labels or symbols they claim, I wouldn’t consider them part of the left, and they shouldn’t be tolerated in leftist spaces either IMHO.
Marxists are absolutely leftists, and are in charge of history’s most significant and largest leftist systems.
So all marxists are tankies? Marxism is incompatible with anti-authoritarianism?
Kinda? Tankie is just a pejorative for Marxist or anti-imperialist, generally. It’s a strawman with exaggerated characteristics that anti-communists fling at people to avoid actually listening to what they have to say.
As far as “authoritarianism” is concerned, all Marxists support the working class wielding its authority against capitalists, fascists, etc.
The transition from capitalism to socialism will nearly always be through revolution. It simply isn’t feasible to ask the ruling class to give up the very system that entitles them to their plunder, elections are carefully controlled so as to not allow genuine socialist or communist victory. Even when communists like Allende won in countries like Chile, they are couped, just like the US is attempting against Maduro. Revolution is authoritarian, it’s the forceful will of the majority against the minority. As Engels put it:
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?
Historically, revolution has unfolded the same way, as the majority enforcing its will upon the minority. The French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, Korean, etc have all been such examples. They have been enormously liberating for the working classes, and terribly authoritarian towards capitalists, landlords, fascists, colonizers, etc. I’m not going to erase that that violence happened, but I’m not going to minimize that these were and are popular movements supported by the broad majority either. None of these countries are utopias, but all are real, with real working class victories.
Socialism is a mode of production, characterized by public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy. The western European countries don’t have socialism, they have social safety nets within the boundaries of capitalism. They fund these safety nets with the spoils of imperialism, ie international plunder of the global south, not through their own labor. The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, etc are socialist, not western Europe, and moreover do not depend on imperialism for their safety nets. Western Europe is not moving onto communism because it isn’t even socialist yet, and is under the dictatorship of capitalists.
Communism is a mode of production where all of production and distribution has been collectivized and run according to a common plan. It’s stateless, classless, and moneyless. It is post-socialist in that socialism is where production and distribution are gradually collectivized, erasing the basis for class, and the basis of the state as a consequence. Personal property remains, ie you can keep your toothbrush, but production and distribution are collectivized.
If you want a good introduction to Marxist theory, I wrote an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list. Feel free to check it out!
Removed by mod
inb4 libs come to smugly tell us we are murderous fascists.
last week, i was queer tankie for interjecting on anti-chinese pink washing propaganda
fortunately, i’ve learned what to expect from the diet-reddit instance of the lemmyverse and it so bizarre that pink washing works for china, but not isreal when it comes to palestine.
Erm akshutally how is it possible to care for human life without maximizing shareholder profit, in this 10,000,000 page peer reviewed study (sponsored by megacorp™) I will prove that you are wrong and I am good
It wasn’t by megacorp, it was by a think tank sponsored by a consultancy hired by megacorp to do exactly that. Stop blaming megacorp for everything. You people are so fucking conspiratorial.
Oh sorry, I will stop asking questions and keep consooming product™ from megacorp™
erhm i’ll let you know that the soviet onion killed six hundred million bajillion stalinnion people so ☝️🤓
Carl Mark keel 10,000 Marxillion people venevuala no iphone north corea
I love that you misspelled Marx but then wrote Marxillion, I live for shitposts like this lmao
As much as we might disagree about things and eventually have to kill each other when you inevitably betray the revolution and try to kill me for not being reactionary enough, I’d far prefer your world to theirs.
we don’t want to kill anyone. though police forces might be deployed to try and stop us.
we don’t want regular people dead, far from it. we want you to join us against the ones who oppress us. shit, we are ok with you doing whatever you think it’s effective as long as you don’t side with fascists like libs sometimes do.
Missing the point.
It wasn’t the Marxists betraying the revolution, though. There’s genuinely no need for anarchists and Marxists to kill each other, the idea that Marxists always “betray” anarchists comes from the examples of some anarchists choosing to take up arms against socialist states and being killed by the Marxists. There are numerous examples of the opposite happening, and many of anarchists joining the bolsheviks and other communist parties out of sheer practicality. The subsection of anarchists that were killed by Marxists weren’t killed “for not being reactionary enough,” but for quite literally being reactionary and choosing to attack socialist states.
Yeah you’re right I guess words don’t mean things.
Words do mean things, I don’t know what you’re getting at here.
So, we just ignoring the tens of millions of deaths under communism?
I mean we are ignoring the tens of millions of deaths under capitalism, so why not?
Communists acknowledge that excess deaths have occured under socialist systems governed by communist parties. It’s reality, after all. However, we also acknowledge that these excess deaths pale in comparison to the systemic murders and genocides propogated by capitalism, as well as the fact that socialist systems have been responsible for doubling life expectancy in many cases such as Russia and China, along with huge material gains in quality of life.
It’s true that excess deaths occured, but it’s even more true that socialism has been responsible for preventing far more deaths than it has ever caused. Deaths due to unintentional famines were common in early socialism, and systemically ended by socialists when they used to be prevalent under previous semi-feudal conditions. Communists have consistently been the ones most responsible for uplifting living standards and metrics in the last century.
Compared to the shitload of capitalism only this year?
Removed by mod
authorian regime kills its citizen
“guys working together just does not work” ^^ this guy
Socialist states have had excesses, but they pale in comparison to the killings systemic to capitalism, and moreover socialist states have been responsible for the largest uplifting in living standards in history.
My point was more like that authoriatarianism and socialism/ communism does not habe to be connected
All socialist states will have to use authority, though, in order to disempower capitalists and fascists, and protect the gains of the revolution. Capitalists will see this as authoritarian, but it’s also liberating for the working classes. States don’t just wield power for the sake of it, they are thoroughly connected to class struggle and as such class analysis needs to be at the core of understanding authority.
well sry i dont know what i mean. I mean authoriatarianism as in, using the power of the state and laws and whatever to keep a select few in power, who are above the laws, while also using the power of the state to fullfill whatever intrestest some group of people have.
like a dicatorship or a kingdom
while i dont mean like democratic authority (whitout it beeing opression/ more then nessasary opressing)
Okay, sure, but we aren’t talking about capitalism but existing/formerly existing socialist states like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc. That doesn’t apply to those.
how was the Ussr not a dictatorship
I don’t think promoting these sentiments does anything but propagandise an “us vs them” mentality that is fundamentally toxic to the idea of communism.
“Four legs good, two legs bad” is all, I am gonna say.
Class struggle is intrinsic to communism, it’s important to show the working classes that our collective enemy isn’t each other, but the capitalists and the capitalist state. We need to align the working classes against our shared class enemy, not try to ally with those who support the systems supporting our class enemies.
Thanks for proving my point. Your “us vs them” thinking caused you to confuse “propagandised individuals” with “capitalist” and ignore the big difference between both.
“Capitalist” is a class that in communism doesn’t exist. So consequently, after the implementation of communism there is no enemy of the class “capitalist” anymore. So again, communism would serve all people.
“Propagandised individuals” wouldn’t disappear after the implementation of communism. They can be discriminate against.
I’m referring to communism as the movement, not as communism the mode of production. In the far future where communism is achieved, there wouldn’t be individuals propagandized against communism, the lengthy process of getting there is through socialism by which point those contradictions are worked out.
In the present day, capitalists are the enemy of the working classes. Trying to unite the working classes against them and their enablers, ie the GOP, DNC, etc, is a progressive struggle.
As if the rhetoric of today has no influence on the rhetoric of tomorrow.
But even in this very short sighted context, the conflation of “propagandised individuals” and “capitalist” is obviously toxic to the aim of archiving communism.
I will take a wild guess that you have many friends who are raised in capitalistic environments and who have been exposed to anti communism propaganda. Some of that propaganda probably worked on them and consequently they are propagandised individuals. But I doubt you would call them capitalist and enemy. Ofc, you wouldn’t as you would special plead for them, while happily supporting conflating propagandised individuals with capitalists and the enemy.
You’re entirely confused. I live in the US Empire, of course I know people raised in capitalism. I’m not calling the working class my enemy, I’m calling for the working class to directly combat the DNC, GOP, and the entire capitalist class. I’m not conflating those who side with the capitalists despite being working class with the capitalist class, but recognizing that we need to do our best to show them who their actual enemies are and organize them.
Because you know the actual enemy, you defend a meme that demonises “propagandised individuals” instead of the enemy. Interesting choice.
It isn’t demonizing them, but explaining that communists are hated just for wanting a better world, which is true.
I think you misunderstood what they meant, when they said “capitalists” they meant those who own the capital and such, not people who believe capitalism works and socialism doesn’t. Propagandized individuals are only capitalists if they own capital.
No i didn’t.
I understand what capitalists are and he does too. We agree with the definition.
He just feels forced to conflate both to justify a toxic meme.
Removed by mod
the social Democrats enabled fascism the whole way; they literally had right wing paramilitaries kill their left wing opposition.
you clearly would rather be goose stepping
Removed by mod
“literally” lmao - spoiler they didn’t
The SPD endorsed the ‘lesser evil’ conservative candidate who went on to hand over power to Hitler.
They also killed a ton of communists, all of the above is probably why you have a soft spot for them
Removed by mod
Look up some Ernst Thalmann quotes.
feel free to provide them.
I don’t mind communists, just tankies.
Well I don’t like social democrats at all because they’re always contriving new lies and smears to divert attention from their awful pro-capitalist politics.
The social democrats were murdering the communists, while the KPD stood firmly against Hitler and the Nazis. The SPD endorsed Hindenburg, who won, and subsequently gave power to Hitler.
Real.
deleted by creator
Pretty much yeah
The problem is not the communist utopia, is how the means to build it will always end up in a totlitarian police state. Because we can’t have nice things.
looks around in the usa
No. The people making these criticisms like the totalitarian police state part. It’s the communism that pisses them off.
Like, idk what % of local and national resources went to cops/domestic intelligence operations in the USSR on its worst day, certainly too fucking much, but I bet it wasn’t half what american municipalities and fedgov spend right now.
This is just a red scare caricature of socialist societies from the perspective of capitalists. For the working classes, socialism has brought dramatic increases in freedom and democratization.
So I will admit that I am ignorant of a method of attaining Communism that isn’t at the end of a rifle, and thus authoritarian by nature (and fully accept that, to a degree, Capitalism is also at the end of a gun, but typically less overt, or often directed without instead of within). The only nations I’ve seen flying the red flag have appeared highly authoritarian (and I’m not going to get drawn into a “USSR and PRC aren’t/weren’t authoritarian, and DPRK is actually a utopia!” discussion, so if that’s the direction this is going, let me know and I’ll politely see my way out).
I’ve seen in the lower comments that Socialism would be used as a gateway to Communism, but I am unclear about the transition from “everybody’s basic needs are met via taxation and distribution” to “personal property is abolished” (as I understand Communism to mean, please correct me if I’m wrong). Plenty of European countries have had (for the west), strong seemingly socialist systems, but they don’t seem to be deliberately angling toward Communism, for example.
So I’m curious what this peaceful Capitalist to Communist timeline would look like.
The transition from capitalism to socialism will nearly always be through revolution. It simply isn’t feasible to ask the ruling class to give up the very system that entitles them to their plunder, elections are carefully controlled so as to not allow genuine socialist or communist victory. Even when communists like Allende won in countries like Chile, they are couped, just like the US is attempting against Maduro. Revolution is authoritarian, it’s the forceful will of the majority against the minority. As Engels put it:
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?
Historically, revolution has unfolded the same way, as the majority enforcing its will upon the minority. The French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, Korean, etc have all been such examples. They have been enormously liberating for the working classes, and terribly authoritarian towards capitalists, landlords, fascists, colonizers, etc. I’m not going to erase that that violence happened, but I’m not going to minimize that these were and are popular movements supported by the broad majority either. None of these countries are utopias, but all are real, with real working class victories.
Socialism is a mode of production, characterized by public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy. The western European countries don’t have socialism, they have social safety nets within the boundaries of capitalism. They fund these safety nets with the spoils of imperialism, ie international plunder of the global south, not through their own labor. The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, etc are socialist, not western Europe, and moreover do not depend on imperialism for their safety nets. Western Europe is not moving onto communism because it isn’t even socialist yet, and is under the dictatorship of capitalists.
Communism is a mode of production where all of production and distribution has been collectivized and run according to a common plan. It’s stateless, classless, and moneyless. It is post-socialist in that socialism is where production and distribution are gradually collectivized, erasing the basis for class, and the basis of the state as a consequence. Personal property remains, ie you can keep your toothbrush, but production and distribution are collectivized.
If you want a good introduction to Marxist theory, I wrote an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list. Feel free to check it out!
I appreciate the write-up, thank you! I feel like a lot of this is semantic differences. I’ve always thought of socialism as any public funds used specifically to help citizens (e.g. social security, medicare, unemployment, UBI, etc) and Communism to be the public owning and running the means of production, and distributing goods thereof, and the stateless, classless, moneyless society to be the ideal utopia it aspired to (similar to Star Trek). From your comment, I see that what I call Communism, you call Socialism (which explains a lot of confusion from discussions in the past with self-described Communists I’ve known), and the nameless Star Trek post-scarcity system you would call Communism.
Do you think it is possible to slow-roll the transition peacefully, though? If, for example, instead of the government bailing out industries, they bought out industries on the cheap, slowly growing and monopolizing like Google or Amazon have? Or do you think the rich would simply block that from happening?
No problem!
To answer your question, Marxists analyze the state as an extension of a given ruling class in society. In capitalism, that means the state is under the control of the capitalists. Capitalists would never allow their sole sources of plunder be gradually taken from them unless the state had supremacy over them and was under the control of the working class.
The PRC actually kinda does what you’re talking about, but they can only do this because they implemented a socialist system following a revolution. The commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned, and the state exerts strong control over the medium firms as well. As these firms develop, they become easier to fold into the public sector, and thus are absorbed or more directly controlled.
11·23 hours agoThe problem here is your understanding of socialism. European countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway (etc.) have not had socialism. They have had social democracy, capitalism with social safety nets.
Socialism, probably yeah. But here it’s communism thats displayed
All countries headed by communist parties have all been, at most, socialist. Communism is a post-socialist society devoid of classes and a state, where production and distribution is fully collectivized and oriented towards satisfying needs. All communists understand that socialism is the process necessary to build socialism, and that therefore communism has yet to be achieved while socialism has been.
Not true communism™
They were and are truly attempts at building communism. They were “true communism” in that sense. At the same time, they have yet to reach the stateless, classless, moneyless society stage where production and distribution is fully collectivized and oriented towards satisfying needs that communists call “communism” as a mode of production.
The “not true communism” argument more refers to those that incorrectly deny the USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc as validly socialist states working towards communism, not those that acknowledge them as genuine.
You literally said:
Socialism, probably yeah. But here it’s communism thats displayed
That person explained why that’s a flawed way of understanding previous socialist experiments and that the distinction you’re making doesn’t make much sense, and instead of listening and admitting you don’t know much about the topic you decided to accuse that person of a logical fallacy that doesn’t even apply.
(Looks like the comment I replied to got deleted, so mind the context was in response to “Not true communism TM”)
This is an ignorant way to respond, although I can appreciate these terms have several meanings that can be difficult to follow.
Communist parties of the 20th century knew and openly stated that what they had built was a socialist system and communism was the endgame. The goal of 20th century socialists was to gradually progress to that point that scarcity is abolished and distribution follows the principle of need. At which point they might declare communism achieved, so long as other things have happened like completing the (gradual) dissolution of the state.
It is not an attempt to distance from a bad word - we/Marxists/Communists don’t see it as a bad word.
And the 20th century movements & their states were “real communism” in that they were a genuine expression of the movement for communism, and furnish us with both positive and negative examples.
Removed by mod
The USSR and PRC are some of the most successful socialist states in history, and have done far better than western countries in creating equitable, worker-focused societies. Not having a western “enlightenment” didn’t stop them.
Not even two comments in and it’s already full on white supremacist “barbaric hordes” talking points
Least chauvinistic liberal
Thats moving the goal post. You’re saying communism yields benefits everyone, I tell you it hasn’t , and you’re saying those places don’t count.
