The downside of creating political shitposts in this community is feeling obligated to read the parapgraphs on paragraphs of seemingly serious political theory that no one asked for.
At some point, you have to lean into the shit part of shitpost and accept that you’re posting in a troll thread
JuSt ReAd tHeOry bRo!
Oh you’re not allowed to dislike both.
Meanwhile the Anarchists are like…
Well, easier to overthrow one than the other.
Is it tho
Ah, yes, I forgot. Those two famously still in power people… checks notes… Barak Obama and Joe Biden.
Anarchism? Wasn’t that made illegal in the US after the Haymarket bombing?
Well you see the thing about Anarchists…
I wish I could create an alternate reality where anarchy reigns and transport all these “anarchists” to it and watch them drown the entire reality in their tears as they suffer and die.
I mean I don’t want to watch people suffer and die, but yeah it wouldn’t go well. I wish we could simulate or otherwise test theories like this and get probable answers without, you know, condemning hundreds to die for their flawed views.
Without the Government and Capitalism, everything would collapse and it would just be like Mad Max!
If Bosses and Cops are the only thing stopping anyone from going all Mad Max, then we would already be in that Anarchist Dystopia you’re imagining because the Mad Max Style Hooligans you imagine wouldn’t care about what the Law or some Rich Guy says.
If the only thing stopping you from going all Mad Max are cops and bosses, then I think you should examine why and maybe, perhaps, seek help, because the average person doesn’t go about going “I wanna kill people but the only thing stopping me is the Cops.”
For anarchism to work, there has to be similar enough values and cultures among different communities to trust each other. But the world is too diverse at the moment for that to happen. I mean, anarchism is possible like the Fremens in Dune, but it would take a long time for a planetary wide cultural convergence to allow anarchism to thrive.
I mean it wouldn’t devolve into mad max (at least not for long) because people would naturally organize into some sort of structure (like a government). This happens every time IRL.
One could argue that most of the people who want to go all Mad Max do in fact break the law to do so, and are now in jail. Or do you think that disturbed people who want to do harm to the general populace don’t exist?
I think it’s a bit straw-man-y to say that people who argue that “without law there would be chaos” are saying they want chaos. In fact, it’s the opposite. There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm. I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm.
I work in a position that enables me to actually confirm this to be true. There are A LOT of criminals out there. And if society started collapsing a lot of previously good people would turn into criminals out of desperation or opportunity. I honestly don’t think the average person understands how many people there are out there that have no problem with the idea of taking advantage of others and even just the threat of law enforcement is what stops them.
I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
No, they certainly do not. Every time I’ve gotten into an argument with an anarchist their ideology falls to pieces as soon as I start asking the difficult questions.
Not sure what you’re going on about. You seem to have quoted something I didn’t say.
I’m not sure if you thought I meant I actually want to kill anarchists using magic. Clearly I was being sarcastic and just want them to learn from suffering under the form of existence they appear to want so badly.
And to be crystal clear, while I do have many qualms with law enforcement, I promise you that if law enforcement ceased to exist tomorrow our society would very quickly begin to collapse. Because there are A LOT of criminals out there and way, way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing. To disagree with that is an admission of not being remotely aware of how many criminals actually exist or any familiarity with the human condition.
This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.
And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.
So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don’t have for survival in the short term.
It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.
I’m not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.
My vision for anarchy basically functions like an average friend group, there is no “leader” of the group, anyone can organize an event, whether its a hangout, a dinner, or asking for help with a project. Nobody is forced to go to any given event. If a conflict comes up, then we talk about it like adults, and come to a beneficial resolution. Each person chips in in their own ways. Honestly its pretty fucking awesome and I think the world would be a lot better place if we had this mentality.
What happens when someone selfishly refuses to contribute to the common good? Or worse, actively attempts to disrupt it?
I’m not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer
It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.
People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it’s social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.
mutualism
central planning
Hmmm. I wonder how you achieve those things in an incredibly diverse scenario with millions/billions of people with varying desires. It’s almost like you’d have to create some form of government that relied on citizens voting, potentially through elected representatives. Almost like a democracy of some sort. So, not anarchism.
Then their ideology completely falls apart. Lol.
Could you explain for me what you think that ideology is and what specifically I said would dismantle that and why?
While your version of anarchy works on a micro level amongst friends, unfortunately, it would not work on a macro national level. Or even state level. Or even city level.
You’re also basically describing voting. People come together and express their opinion and the opinion with the most support wins.
So, not anarchism.
Anarchists are allowed to vote. What are you talking about?
Interesting how your first thought is murder, isn’t it?
We know exactly what anarchy looks like in human history, it’s how every human society worked before agriculture started consolidating power in the hands of sociopaths.
It’s how some steppe tribes lived. It’s how most North Americans lived before Columbus.
Anarchism is the natural state of humanity because it’s just decentralized tribes at the end of the day. The only difference now would be that you know what antibiotics and crop rotations are.
I think you have a VERY warped view of native american history. These people had entire cities, there was definitely tribal hierarchy and I’m gonna be real (although I blame the education system, not you) but the perception that they were just wandering around in structureless harmony is wrong and kinda racist.
Interesting how your first thought is murder, isn’t it?
Lol. My scenario included literal magic. Literal magic to create an alternate reality. I know people be dumb and that’s why you have to use /s when you’re being sarcastic on the internet, but I thought people would grasp that a literal magical scenario was sarcastic. Guess I gave you too much credit. To be clear, I want them to suffer under the conditions they want for everyone else so they can hopefully learn and be less ignorant going forward.
it’s how every human society worked before agriculture
So when people used to raid other settlements and rape, murder, and enslave the occupants and take their resources for their own and you’d be lucky to live to 40 and it was probably a pretty painful 40 years. Great example you’ve got there. Sounds like a sweet reality to live in. Pre-agriculture human life was short and largely comprised of suffering.
it’s just decentralized tribes at the end of the day.
Yes, modern civilization with 8+ billion people is just tribes. Very simple. It’s all just very simple in your mind, isn’t it?
The only difference now would be that you know what antibiotics and crop rotations are.
Yes, those are the only differences…
I think that you’re not wrong, but the historical way that these societies have handled antisocial behavior is via lynchings. I don’t know that this model works if you don’t bring back lynchings, which I personally find unpalatable.
Would you rather a small group of power hungry psychopath oligarchs be in charge of the lynchings according to their isolated, self-serving, sheltered, and privileged reasonings in order to maintain their status and authority? Or do you think there is some stupid super intelligence governor floating out there somewhere we need to appease for some stupid reason so it’ll invite us to the private party it’s throwing that doesn’t like it when we do that?
Would you rather a small group of power hungry psychopath oligarchs be in charge
This isn’t an either/or situation. It isn’t have anarchy or have psychopath oligarchs be in charge.
The fact that you need to create this obscene scenario to prove your point indicates how weak your point is.
Millions killed in purges and policy created in cults of personality.
Yeah, need to make a whole identity sh*tting on imperfect democracies while touting systems that have always devolved into dictatorships.
Devolved?
Which of the listed nations on the bottom were revolutions that overthrew functioning free and fair democratic systems?
Why the f does that matter? They existed as they did, killed multiple millons, so don’t butwhatabout and redirect.
“Everything I don’t like is CIA propaganda” is the usual argument.
Hey, there’s also “CNN talking mfer”. I was called that for recalling my literal personal experiences of interacting with Russians years before full scale war.
Of course, the CIA and US Government does actually do propaganda campaigns. Whether via things like the Voice Of America radio station. Or like
Domestic Anti-Communist stuff:
Operation Mockingbird bird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird,
The Crusade for Cultural Freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_for_FreedomThe Congress for Cultural Freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom
The Red Scare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
More general fuckery:
Lavender Scare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_scare
The suppression of the PRISM information program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
Suppression of wartime massacres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massacre
The assassin of Fred Hampton (American communist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Fred_HamptonThe killing of MLK (American Socialist).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.And that’s just a small portion of the US government propaganda campaigns they’ve run ON AMERICAN CITIZENS AND CULTURE. Not including things like the outlawing of Anarchism, or whatever the hell people like Allen Dulles and George Bush Senior were up to…
…and all of this is before even asking about overseas propaganda campaigns.
So yes, the CIA has definitely been heavily involved in curbing American opinions, and massively suppressing support for Communism and Socialism in America.
American Free speech - but only to an extent, after that you’ll have to deal with government interference.
While they whole heartedly suck, it doesn’t mean they’re responsible for everything that sucks.
Tankies don’t look at the shitty things China and Russia do.
Yes, and anti-communists tend to overlook the shitty things Capitalism and the US government do.
The critique cuts both ways. I don’t think either side has much of a solution… But right now - in the west - it’s clear that too much Socialism is not the problem.
The West is Cappoed out right now. Kind of tired of it.
Hey kid, wanna buy us a new Data Center?
No thanks Sir, please leave me alone.
anti-communists tend to overlook the shitty things Capitalism and the US government do
I don’t think either side has much of a solution
You are conflating not being a tankie with being an anticommunist.
Being a communist shouldn’t stop you from ciritquing your own state. A healthy communist state allows for open critique and discussion of what works and what doesn’t. Otherwise you risk autocracy.
And I would hazard calling China and Russia communist states. Russia doesn’t even call itself communist anymore. And China is a one party autocracy with a free market. They’re only communists in name.
What’s your definition of communist? For me it implies a centrally planned economy to the exclusion of any free market and is definitely at great risk to fall into autocracy. I think that kind of project is doomed from the start, so I wouldn’t call identify myself as a communist.
I’m not really interested in defining them or getting into that kind of argument here (not being a Communist, I don’t want to defend it).
…but I believe Market Socialism is a thing. Capitalism is (in Marxist doctrine) considered a stage of Communism, and that these discussions often overlook Vietnam…
…Vietnam also has a system of Market Socialism, they’ve just almost resolved homelessness and have no housing crisis because they have a land redistribution system for anyone who wants to go into farming.
… so like, whilst I don’t like Tankies AT ALL (they all demand your read a specific 1000 book list before even having a discussion)… I do think anti-communists are also annoying and often under cooked/biased on historical facts.
To use an analogy being anti-tankie often comes across as basically saying we need to reconsider what the alt-right are saying during the Trump era… And exceedingly often comes down to “a tankie once called me a name I don’t like”.
In short - in comes across as reactionary (rather than thoughtful/legitmate). I don’t like anti-tankies because they’re having a reactionary response rather than just going “those guys are dicks, but I understand within a Capitalist society”
Instead anti-tankies go, “those guys are dicks for calling me that of all people, I’m going to form a club to complain about it… Even though billionaire crony Capitalism is really the problem right now”.
So yeah, I don’t like either of them, but I understand uptight commies better than I do the reaction to them. I can hide and block the commies pretty easy.
so like, whilst I don’t like Tankies AT ALL (they all demand your read a specific 1000 book list before even having a discussion)… I do think anti-communists are also annoying and often under cooked/biased on historical facts.
I agree.
…Vietnam also has a system of Market Socialism, they’ve just almost resolved homelessness and have no housing crisis because they have a land redistribution system for anyone who wants to go into farming.
Always assumed they did what china did. They realized that the tool to stay in power was stability and growth, so they incentivized development on the local and national level for climbing the party ladder and good boy points. But it’s nice to see them actually follow through with the ideals as well.
In short - in comes across as reactionary (rather than thoughtful/legitmate).
I understand how that can be tiring. I’ve stopped talking to anyone who purports any fascist or anti-socialist ideals. They will never listen. They are too comfortable with the power they hold to reconsider. On lemmy, I have come across far too many tankies who confuse me to no end. They come off as religious nuts who pretend to like the same ideals I do. They are in my opinion just as worse as the anti-communists.
I don’t want to be associated with them. And I think the political spectrum is far too complicated to neatly divide people into simple categories. But it’s easier to do and who has the time to actually get to know strangers online. So, as a rule, I am against any tankie or fascist.
Don’t forget their chatbot!
Hurtful, I’m like SUPER likable
So, ‘everyone I like, too’?
Aww thanks buddy, I’m not sure I’m allowed to talk to captchas though
Depends on if you’re a robot… hey, wait a minute
Aww man, I put a TON of thought into my propaganda. At least give me some constructive criticism instead of just not liking it
Oh, great to see you here! I’ve been meaning to contact you regarding my latest propaganda paycheck delay.
Look, it’s not my fault that Trump funneled all our funding into his crypto scam. You’ll get paid when we do damnit!
19 XRAY KILO FOXTROT 28
Message received: drone strike on your location in 10
Can’t tell you how many times these twats have called me a genocider.
It used to be a pretty serious word, but these losers are working overtime stripping it of all its meaning by using it on everyone that disagrees with them.
I just respond I’m anti genocide, including, Russia’s kidnapping and trafficking Ukrainian children and China’s genocide of the Uyghars. It shuts them up or they immediately start defending them and then I call them genocides.
I’ve been called a zionist genocider for pointing out mass-murder is evil. People are fucking NUTS!
They sure are, and I think some of them are here to brigade this post.
The usual pattern: one, then two, then ten to defend the honor of Comrad Mao and bury us all in bad-faith brigades.
It’s enough to drive a man to anarchy
Makhno was right all along
The problem with both anarchism and communism is that while they can work at the smaller scales, at the bigger ones they become more and more vulnerable. Both can pretty easily devolve into plain authoritarianism. I’m a big fan of anarchy as a concept, but i don’t see how it could work on a geopolitical scale.
Groups remain small
I’d say anarchism has more self-checks against authoritarianism compared to capitalism or “communism” of the Soviet or Chinese variety. In the end, it’s all about reducing the reliance on hierarchies and there’s no single right way to do it.
Getting rid of hierarchies certainly helps, yeah… The problem is though, that a political power without a hierarchy will inherently lose to a hierarchical one at least in terms of military power, which is geopoliticianeese for “i’m free to take by whomever!”
The only implementation of communism that was actually tried long-term is Marxist-Leninism (aka Stalinism), which is both uniquely authoritarian and basically heretical. Everything else was crushed either by the capitalist West or by the USSR itself, so really the jury is out on what a more normal attempt at socialism would actually look like.
Yes, communism is yet to be ever implemented in reality, but i see no problem with mentally evaluating the idea before implementing it. After all, do you jump off the roof before looking down, or you look down before jumping? I’m sticking with the second one, and if you’re not, i suggest you call your local suicide prevention hotline.
Communism, no matter the flavor, will anyway be laying somewhere on a spectrum between centralization and decentralization, so it will be vulnerable in any case. If you can imagine an idea where it isn’t, i wholeheartedly ought you to share it.
I don’t think that was ever in doubt.
I had the same oddly sarcastic impulse - “oh, brave take”. But then I noticed that’s only because of how stridently leftist this space is. Then I wandered away, too unbothered to even finish replying
It’s the only option
I’ll let my ignorance shine - what’s the b/w photo to the right?
Pretty sure it’s the 1990s DPRK famine
I don’t take sides because nobody is on my side.
[Edit: --Treebeard]
Can I be on your side?
But your name isn’t Treebeard…
Not to mention Treebeard discovered he was wrong to avoid getting involved once he understood what was going on.
Enlightened Centrism, then?
No, enlightened centrists have representation.
I’m a socialist in the United States and AOC is gonna vote for Hakeem Fucking Jeffries for Speaker, so who is really on my side at this moment?
But in the context of the US vs China, it seems like people are always explicitly making me pick a side. Almost all the China-bashing is motivated by wanting to keep the US hegemonic, and every time I say, “Hey, why are we saying China shouldn’t rule the world but never challenging why we allow the United States to rule the world?” I get called a tankie.
Ah gotcha, you’re a purity tester; my mistake.
Are simplistic stereotypes the only way you can understand the world?
No, I just try to figure out whence cometh ridiculous behavior so I can point it out and others can ignore it in peace.
I can see why your account is a throwaway.
I can see why yours is incoherent nonsense.
It really does feel like AOC is a career politician with too deep ties with super pacs that fund most of the “moderates” in democratic party.
Please vote her out as well.
Yes let’s eat ourselves guys, it’s the only solution am I right fellow comrades? Quickly let’s fuck ourselves as hard as we can, it’s ideological purity that people need, not results!
It’s not ideological purity. I don’t have anything against her, but if she votes Jefferies then the blue wave will have little effect imo.
If america had an actual multi-party system this wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place. You get your preferred candidate and I get my preferred one, most likely in a coalition together.
So you think if Jeffreys gets to keep his job, and bearing in mind I agree with you that he is a fucking waterproof teabag, you think that this entire election cycle and all of the new people brought into congress, will have “little effect”?
I mean it would be a blow, but don’t you think that this kind of hyperbolic overreaction is unhelpful? Like, if he does, are you gonna give up? I’m not in a competition to be the most leftist, I want to push our wins and recover from our losses.
They way you talk is defeatist.
Okay, you are right. All is not lost. I am not trying to be defeatist, there will be other chances.
I just think it’s rare to see so many non career politicians win elections. It’s a good moment to shore up and solidify that base before the two party rotating system rings back in.
The system disciplines everyone is the fuller answer.
And AOC is actually a very good case study in how this happens even if you aren’t explicitly bought and sold
Cause in fact she is not deeply rooted in corporate super pacs or propped up heavily by conditioned billionaire money. The popular narrative that seems to dominate.
Instead she was disciplined by the system itself and the people she has to work with inside that system and the systems of influence in and outside of the government.
So replacing her is not going to be the core fix for this problem. The next person will face the same pressures and the same disciplining forces.
If the DSA had 100 members in congress things would be different, but even then certain mechanisms of discipline will never fully go away until a more fundamental change in the relationship of the state and who it serves and how it is controlled changes.
Instead she was disciplined by the system itself and the people she has to work with inside that system and the systems of influence in and outside of the government.
You are right, it’s more the culture of the institution she’s a part of. That however doesn’t excuse it. She has the chance, with the new wave to stand with the right kind of people.
The next person will face the same pressures and the same disciplining forces.
Not if you vote the moderates out. I know it’s more complicated than this, but trump has set a fire in motion that might not burn again very soon.
This time I saw that wyoming, Montana, Nebraska and Idaho had independents running against the republicans for the senate. They were all blue collar working class military veterans. They had close races. I am not familiar with their elections but it seems like the people want a change, but they don’t want to vote for the same old guys who are supported by corporates and outside interests. This is the perfect time for change.
We have a real problem in that it’s relatively easy for establishment candidates to give off progressive signals and for the mainstream media to never challenge them, so people will happily pose as progressives and then go right back to the establishment.
Look to Susan Collins for a mirrored example of that. It’s very effective.
That said, I think we’re going to have a lot of angry primary voters in 2028 if things keep going how they’re going.
No True Progressive
If someone is a Progressive 99% of the time and fucks up 1% of the time, tHeYrE eStAbLiShMeNt NeOlIbS!!!
With this much purity testing, it’s no wonder the left has no ground to stand on in the US - the rug keeps getting pulled by people further left of whatever platform they’re on.
Meanwhile the conservatives and fascists are patting each other on the back for putting aside their differences.
Getting pissed off at voting for a house speaker with a history of opposing progressive causes after a once-in-century change election isn’t purist pique.
Dems have a chance to redefine the party into something people want to vote for. If we can’t do it, we’re giving racist Christofascism another shot at a permanent majority. We have a lot of work to do at every level and we can’t do it with a corpodem at the top of the hiearchy.
Getting pissed off at voting for a house speaker with a history of opposing progressive causes after a once-in-century change election isn’t purist pique.
It is when you try to argue that AOC is No True Progressive.
Dems have a chance to redefine the party into something people want to vote for. If we can’t do it, we’re giving racist Christofascism another shot at a permanent majority. We have a lot of work to do at every level and we can’t do it with a corpodem at the top of the hiearchy.
Cool soapbox, but I never said anything different; you’re acting like I disagree with you here.
Here’s to hoping.
I’ve heard a number of progressive reps say they’ve had positive conversations with Jeffries regarding the House policy agenda for the upcoming session. I’m interested to hear more. To Jeffries’ credit, he’s only been leader for 2 years in the minority, maybe let’s see how he does with a majority.
Have not heard the same about Schumer. We’re all ready for that guy to not be in charge
Isn’t Jefferies funded by the same super pacs that fund the other moderates? Things aren’t gonna change if he gets elected.
Trump was a good wakeup call to ditch these guys.
Just trust me, bro is not what I want to stake the future of the country on.
If Jeffries is Speaker and doesn’t deliver on progressive demands, the political situation is going to become very unstable. Expect more Democratic primary challenges and wilder swings in the electorate as people desperately look for someone who will finally actually do something, and maybe some solutions will be tried outside the ballot box.
We’re sitting on a powder keg.
I anticipate the next 2 years are going to be rough. I would not be surprised if the Trump Admin starts arresting legislators.
As far as the Democratic Party, I anticipate the progressive momentum from this election will carry over into 2028. What we’re witnessing is literally a generational shift, as all these 80 year olds finally start dying or losing power and Millennials are rapidly increasing their power in Congress
Counter-revolutionaries aren’t innocent. Check mate, lib /s
REACTIONARY, REACTIONARY, YOU’RE A CIA REACTIONARY
Progressives, we have to get rid of billionaires and the wealth gap. Eat the rich.
Communists, we could put them through struggle sessions and beat them in the streets?
Neoliberals, nah, let’s see what billionaires want, let them into government.
Tank man, I have had a hell of a day and just want to get my shopping home, and now there’s a tank here. I’m gonna fuck with a millitary in the 80s.
The US: Our millitary would never Kent state, or Waco, or Ruby Ridge, or Ludlow Massacre, or Battle of Blair Mountain, or extraordinary rendition anyone! This is proof that communism is bad.
The difference between the two is getting narrower and narrower. Dystopian surveillance and murderous authorities? Check. Imperialist foreign policy built on multiple genocides? Check. Pogroms and oppression of minorities? Not only check, but the US is arguably worse than China or the USSR. Though I admit that may be due to the US having an extra century to do dirt. And don’t forget America’s the world leader in Gulags.
The idea that America is benevolent is stupid. The idea that she’s benevolent by comparison is running mighty thin.
The difference between the two is getting narrower and narrower.
“I literally cannot tell the difference between Louis XVI and Robespierre” is a thing you can say from a very great historical distance.
Uhh, yeah, we don’t disagree that America often sucks. Pointing that out in response to criticism pointed at other authoritarian regimes doesn’t make them good. For example, talking about gulags is guaranteed to trigger someone to bring up America’s incarceration rate. Does that magically make gulags good? No, it’s whataboutism and deflection.
When people want to pretend that communism is worse than capitalism because of gulags, that’s not whataboutism.
Because when capitalism is imprisoning as many people as communism, and also leaving millions to live on the streets, starve, etc. then it’s very relevant since you’re comparing them.
When you criticize only one system for things done by both, pointing that out isn’t deflection - it’s simply showing the hypocrisy. When that’s your only argument in the comparison, that’s very relevant.
talking about gulags is guaranteed to trigger someone to bring up America’s incarceration rate.
I didn’t mean to imply the connection between America’s gulags and the Soviets. I meant to state it explicitly. And I also want to point out the meme itself is a whataboutism.
Mao was right about landlords.
And Hitler built the Autobahn. Morons love to handwave mass murdering dictators.
HE DIDN’T! THE PLANS WERE DRAWN UP UNDER THE KAISER!
Most people don’t even realise, Tianamen Square was about Free Speech, and keeping China communist (They were protesting China becoming more open to Capitalism).
The people being massacred - WERE THE COMMUNISTS AND UNIONISTS…
They weren’t pro-markets… They believed (as communist education teaches) that Capitalism would cause class divisions and greater poverty for the majority. The protestors wanted China to stay communist, just with more democratic rights and protections.
That’s also what most people in the USSR and Eastern Europe wanted - basically to have social systems with greater freedoms - but instead they got IMF shock treatment.
The Chinese government claimed that what the protesters wanted would make China have class divisions and greater poverty. I don’t know if that’s true there, but that is what happened in the USSR.
Most people also don’t know that the entire tankman saga happened as Chinese forces were LEAVING Tiananmen Square and he wasn’t run over. The tanks tried to go around then stopped and he climbed up and talked to the driver for a while then walked off with some people. And this all happened outside the foreign press hotel in an area that had been largely blockaded during that time.
Where western reports were going out speaking of tons of violence in areas near the square.
Which tankman has always been a peculiar moment in history cause in context it very much comes off like it was possibly staged by the CCP, or at least the CCP thought it might work in their favor PR wise, but ends up getting used in a way that is suggestive of that moment being a moment of CCP violence against the innocent.
And of course the even larger context of what was being protested was never and still is not really contextualized.
The tanks tried to go around then stopped and he climbed up and talked to the driver for a while then walked off with some people
Genuinely crazy to compare that moment to, say, the ICE raids in Minneapolis and come out complaining about “Tankies”.
That’s an important thing to educate others on, but… so?
The problem is they massacred protestors, not what the protest was about.
If the people want to speak in support of communism, let them. If they want to speak in support of capitalism, let them.
Okay so they were protesting to get Free Speech, and to keep China communist.
You’re saying what they were protesting for (Free Speech and Communism) isn’t important…
…only Free Speech (one of the things they were protesting for) is important… Not Free Speech (one of the things they were protesting for).
A bit of anti-communist blindness is happening here. It’s really okay for Chinese communists to want a more democratic Communism.
[EDIT: On that much we are agreeing. I’m just also adding US pro-Capitalist massacres on too.]
Yeah I agree with the idea of a more democratic communist country. But meme is about how tankies suck chinese and Russian assholes with blind adherence.
Yes, and I doubt American Communism would be that way.
It’s often overlooked that Communism isn’t a singlular unbending set of rules or type of government - every single instance of Communism has come with its own modifications and differences.
I imagine American Communism (which is extraordinarily unlikely to ever come about) would involve Free Speech, the right to bear arms, and Religious freedoms.
Ideally it would retain a multi-party system, and be open to being voted out (with a smooth transition of government garanteed).
It would have totally new and American qualities to it - for better and for worse. That’s what history has shown to occur. Each Communism has been different. Vietnamese Communism isn’t like Chinese Communism isn’t like Russian Communism, and frankly the new versions tend to be better.
Ideally it would retain a multi-party system, and be open to being voted out (with a smooth transition of government garanteed).
It seems like such an important and obvious forethought. I can’t imagine how any of these communist countries missed on that.
I keep thinking back to animal farm. The temptation of power must be very intoxicating.
It would have totally new and American qualities to it - for better and for worse.
Communism with American characteristics.
What in the mental gymnastics is your comment meant to be?
Your edit comes across as, “Oops, looks like I was trying to rage against someone without realizing we agree; better edit to add a subtle retraction. Oh, and I’d better add a whataboutism out of nowhere too.”
It’s a bit of that… Arguing on the internet is just easy to fall into so sorry if you feel hard done by in my figuring out we’re agreeing.
I’m also spread a bit thin because I’ve put a lot of comments out under this post, as I have strong opinions on being anti-tankie and anti-communist under American Capitalist Fascism/Trumpism.
But you do understand it makes you and yours look ridiculous - and is thus counterproductive - when you can’t help yourself (due to your stated strong opinions) but to participate in such bad faith, right?
Between that and the suspicion I have that you were implying the massacres would be more acceptable if they weren’t pro-communist protestors and it’s just one more anecdote of tankies having bizarre and unconscionable stances.
Also, Mao wasn’t actually in power in 1989…
…a leaders “murdering” really has to be once they’re in power…and a lot of the murdering Mao did was due to unintended agricultural famines (made harder to correct as farmers and teachers had been attacked by the red guard student movement, and the USSR had sent a conman over to advise them on crops - killing all the sparrows certainly didn’t help either).
After the Chinese civil war there was an internal political war for who runs the Red Guard student radicals. Mao lost that one, and thus began the Chinese tradition of sequestering leaders… After Tianamen Square Zhao Ziyang was sequestered to his retirement home for trying to speak up for Student Demonstrators.
The famines preceeded the cultural revolution, and thus the student guard, by a very long time.
In fact, a good argument is that Mao was sidelined after the debacle of the famine, and the Cultural Revolution was him doing a low level insurgency to regain power.
Should have been peak performance…
Yes, Godric, compare carbraintopia to removing an entire class of parasites. Sure. I’m the moron lmao
removing a class of parasites
Fuck, a horseshoe theory wallop upside the head yet again :(
Mass-murder is bad, you absolute muppet.
Ignore the swaths of people exposed to the elements in the states while suburban boomers rent out second homes and corporations buy up the rest. What is that if not systemic murder? Yeah Mao did bad shit, killing landlords isnt one of them.
THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves
Look at all these landlords up in here scrambling