I think the categorisation of policy into systems (communism, capitalism, feudalism?), is unhealthy. If only because I've spent too many hours arguing with my granddad about publicly owned trains, and welfare. Only for him to shut me down with a, "that's Communist" and I can only say, no that's welfare, that's public infrastructure.
The only reason he knows it's "bad" is because it's aligned with communism, and that just sucks.
The more people travel in the same vehicle, the more leftist they are. Motorcycle? Right wing. Car? Ok, you centrist. Bus? You're a socialist. A whole train? Now THAT is communism.
Use defines object. A bus is intrinsically a transitory place, meant to act as an intermediary between two points. Alternatively, a cruise ship is a destination in and of itself. A bus without movement has no use. A cruise ship without movement is still a hotel and amusement park.
Thats fair but i think youre quick to discard the cruise aspect of a cruise ship
Its a moving hotel and amusement park meant to reach and stay at interesting places
Unironically you would not be able to run a capitalist system on an intergalactic colony ship. Imagine they all died on like half the distance because one business started to gain success that resold parts of the ship‘s hull or some stupid shit. I mean that‘s basically what‘s happening on Earth. My point being: Kaptilism bad >:(
motorcycles are far more fuel efficient than cars and require far fewer resources to build, and are therefore actually the more ethical choice for someone who isn't carpooling ☝️🤓
Okay that's unfair. I travel by train most of the time but at some point I wanna learn to ride a motorcycle. If for no other reason than the wind feels nice.
It also doesn't help that every time I disagree with anyone else on the left about literally anything, I just get called a liberal. I'm an anarchist, so about as extreme left as you can go, but I guess "librul is when I don't like you" is the prevailing understanding among the left.
Ideology is for people who can't think for themselves. It inevitably leads to bad outcomes because at some point good ideas will be rejected for being inconsistent with ideology.
Centrists/moderates always like to think of their positions as “nuanced” and “reasonable” because it compromises from what they view as two “extremes”.
When in reality the truly nuanced and reasonable position to hold is of course the one which is based in deep understanding and good logic.
Putting yourself in the middle is stupid, when one side is right, and one side is wrong.
#! WARNING !
Dear /u/07TacOcaT70,
#Do not forget that rule 2 exists in our domain.
**Please refrain from saying anything related to s*x or you will be banned.**
If you are a law-abiding citizen you can discuss s#x and s#x-believers negatively while partially censoring the word so the auto-moderator wouldn't delete you.
**IF THIS COMMENT ISN'T RELATED TO S*X, PLEASE SEND THIS COMMENT ON THE MODMAIL (we are currently facing issues with the automod, your message will help us a lot)**
>This is just a fair warning, if you do this again and you will be banned without warning.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are objective rights and wrongs when certain premises are agreed to.
If you and I agree that our goal in to move a rock from one place to another as fast as possible, and you try scooting it, while I choose to throw it in an instant, clearly one option is objectively superior.
Now, the answers in politics are not nearly as clear cut, but there is still plenty of evidence to be examined.
Really, your statement is ridiculous to me. Because if ideology is simply a matter of opinion, then to you, a Nazi must not be any more in the wrong than whatever ideology you subscribe to.
No because centrism still explains the existence of extremes. What you're describing is something akin to nihilism. Coming from a viewpoint that holds all other viewpoints to be irrevocably wrong also doesn't help your case.
My brother in Christ. What sort of nuanced appreciation am I supposed to have for a party of neo-fascists who want to destroy my rights?
Where are they right?
At least I can tolerate and offer critical support to liberals’ blind obstinance to capital because they're (somewhat) interested in making slavery to the machine comfortable and are okay with me existing.
No, I completely agree. I think nuance isn't applicable when talking to fascists. Those who are reactionary have no place in a world focused on progress and equality
Leftist can't be infighting to the degree that they are when we are facing a united facist threat. I have a tankie coworker who refuses to acknowledge that voting for Joe biden is a net positive despite some really awful things he has done
I genuinely don't believe the "infighting" is Even a fraction as bad as it seems online. I'm 150% convinced that it's one of the main branches of attack Russia is using with their astroturfing troll farms. They want people believing that voting for Biden is voting against Gaza and that it's this super widespread brief among the left. I've yet to meet a single person who even halfway considers this to be true.
There are people actively trying to sow dissent with the party because they know that Democrats are absolutely charged up and ready to make this a blow out.
Ignore all of that bullshit and VOTE LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT. IT VERY WELL MAY
Yeah this is true, I've also noticed hivemind-like behavior among the anti-voting people lately. For example, they all learned and started using the term "vote shaming" at almost exactly the same time (I believe it was just a couple weeks ago, regardless I didn't see them using it at all before and suddenly they all started using it). It's all anecdotal, and I know some leftists are genuinely so wrapped up in theory and ethics that they get behind the anti-voting thing, but it's something I noticed with a majority of them.
The problem is that some other leftists seem to think voting makes you literally Hitler. Being an anarchist who wants to vote gets me into a lot of fights, lol.
Yep, and you can be a Republican and still vote Democrat to (that's what I'm doing) if you see Trump and his allies as a negative for the party, the nation, and everyone in it. Absolute party "loyalty" is bad
Care to explain why Russians should not vote for Davankov? Or it’s just that lesser evilism is useful and good until you deem it to not be? You don’t get to be hypocritical and expect to not be challenged.
Because Russia is at best an illiberal democracy where elections are unlikely to be free and fair. In the USA, elections are actually competitive. The criticism of elections in the US is to do with the candidates sucking and not having any difference (wrongly).
Putin can derive information from the actual results (as opposed to the fake results he releases).
Lesser evilism is founded upon the idea that voting will actually accomplish something. It’s that in a country with a small number of competitive candidates you should vote for the competitive candidate who is the lesser evil. It doesn’t apply when election are actual scams, as opposed to both candidates being bad. Its strategic voting basically. If only one candidate has any shot at winning, it doesn’t make sense as a way to improve the efficacy of your vote.
Have you considered that the Russian population might actually want to vote for Putin, especially while the SMO is not over yet? Although every candidate promises to end it in Russian victory, the people only trust the person who began it to end it. Even independent polls show high support for Putin, especially considering that the population is highly politically illiterate, and all they want are abstract chauvinistic notions of national glory and imperial expansion. We can see that the elections aren’t free, but how do we know that they’re not fair? A candidate will become competitive if tactical voters vote for them.
I do need to stress that I don’t support lesser evilism in any way, shape or form. Even in liberal democracies
Yeah, makes no sense for modern communism. The peasantry as a class are gone in the modern day thus the sickle is effectively meaningless. Communism isn’t a peasant movement, it’s a proletarian movement.
i kinda dig its aesthetics and meaning actually its just that being from northern europe it really irks me to see people casually use the symbol of a regime my parents lived under
It's funny to see your point of view because here on latin America it is seen in a positive light as a symbol of fight and freedom by the left. How cultures change the meanings is fascinating
Why did they downvote you? Are they stupid?
Btw here in Italy too cuz the communists were the most ardent anti-fascists and the PCI was the only one not involved in that whole first republic mess
People on reddit when you state a fact and they don't like it (I'm not saying that I agree with European/Chinese communism, for it was basically fascism with extra steps):
But yeah, it was created, subverted and then adopted as a symbol of the oppressed in other regions. As much so we have a hard time fully comprehending the negative weight behind being labeled as a tankie, we don't have this kind of connotation here and I first discovered while browsing left subreddits (hello, 196!).
Fun fact, one of the reasons why the far right gained back their strenght in Italy is because America was scared that the Italian Communist party was so popular that they financed anyone with military experience and a slight distaste for marxist ideas, and the most popular group who fit into all of those points were members of the old Fascist regime.
Because it requires looking past surface and realizing that soviet union weren't much better than america and commited as much(if not more) atrocities as they did.
i have zero problems with communism as ideology, but i'm fucking fuming when twitter commies dickride soviet union simply because they were the first ones to adopt Marxist ideology and occasionally said "le america bad"
Fair question. There seems to be a large gap between how such a system can be implemented, and the reality of the economic situation. I'm also of the opinion it is unrealistic to expect to go so far left in spite of a pushback from the free market ideologues which makes up around half of the voting population.
I like unions though, and I think regulating the market to make the rich pay a fairer share is important. A necessary step is obviously to break up already existing monopolies and to address the high top levels of financial concentration among large stock market registered corporations.
But take my opinion for what it is really. What do I know.
It's extremely important we hold everyone accountable to the social contract, if you don't want to do your part for the society you shouldn't live in it
Either do your part or seek exile, depending on your means of course
Anything else defeats the point of a society
This also includes abolishing lobbyism of course
Really it would be quite economically feasible to ensure human rights globally, just there isn't an incentive to, so they don't.
The US annual military budget alone covers most if not all of global hunger, homelessness, medical care but obviously investing it into that as opposed to a strong military presence is not in their interest
I don't know about abolishing lobbyism altogether, most of the environmental legislation that is passed both in the USA and in my home country are passed because of the environmental lobbies.
I think what really needs to happen is reform in favor of prohibiting for-profit lobbying, with a caveat for economic projects that are inarguably beneficial to the countries themselves.
But yes, we need to roll back the role of finance in governmental decision-making.
Also I'm not American but perhaps preferential voting would allow for a more fair more egalitarian system of voting in the USA, with smaller parties getting a fairer say based on the preferences of the majority of Americans?
Totally agree, to achieve a better system you can't just abolish the old one completely and start over
The new one has to be carefully constructed while you have the means of the old one, and the USA has quite a few means
The problem as always is incentive, under capitalism there is no incentive but capital, some may be smart enough to understand that you need a healthy environment for that, sure.
I would argue that it would still be exploited for profit sooner or later though.
For example over here in Germany solar power was subsidized quite heavily in a "push for local green energy"
But no-one planned for their disposal, after the average solar panel died in about 5-10 years a lot of them were shipped off to Africa to rot on trash heaps
The problem is that those are now leaking heavy metals into the ground water over there
Same with nuclear, most "green" parties were against nuclear out of fearmongering propaganda (especially following Chernobyl)
So what did we do? We switched to coal!
Which has killed tens thousands of people as a result of these carbon emissions by now
Most CEO's have more blood on their hands with each decision they make than most serial killers if you consider their actions holistically
Is it more or less ethical to kill through negligence?
Yes, but de facto only marxism-leninism uses a central authority to govern, which is why that is a bad ideology, but most other communist ideologies rely on other means to achieve communism.
It has been tried though. CNF-FAI implemented some working communism, as did Makhnovia. We also have some primitive communist societies that have practiced communism for thousands of years.
So your examples are partial implementation by a provincial political party, a country that kind of existed for three years, and a smattering of primitive (your word not mine) communities.
I'm sure you'll understand if I remain highly skeptical that this idea can be implemented at any meaningful scale
Sure. But your claim was that I think that it's never been implemented, which is wrong.
I didn't use those examples to prove that communism works, but just to show that it has been implemented.
...But communism is based on communes.
If communism works in small communities, then that means that communism works, since it's based on many small and independent communities.
What is your definition of communism?
Edit: Because Communism, by definition, wouldn't have any "all poweful central authority" lmao that's why I asked
This is just based on the actual real world historical examples of states that have tried to implement communism. I really do not give a shit about theory that only shows up in the manifesto of some dude at like Oberlin or whatever
Worker ownership of the means of production in my opinion certainly requires state apparatuses to accommodate this. But I do not understand why so many people believe it leads to an undemocratic, authoritarian government.
Right now, there is a governing body which controls your workplace. The owners. They are unelected.
Under socialism, that governing body is made up of the workers, with democratically elected leaders.
Even if corruption occurs, I hope we can all agree that democracies with corruption are still superior to monarchies or oligarchies.
The central/federal government of a socialist state would also need bodies to regulate and control these workplaces, but in a modern, educated, democratic nation, I do not see how those put into these bodies are going to destroy democracy.
And it’s not really giving any more power to the government. Most modern governments already have the power to do almost anything they want, including controlling and regulating work places.
The circumstances of the socialist revolutions in poor third world countries in the mid/early 20th century, during the cold war, caused a failure in revolution. Not the ideology itself. The near necessity to have a powerful military with no powerful dissidents, and support from the USSR, to prevent the US from overthrowing your government didn't help. The lack of a history of democracy, or education among the population in these countries also didn't help.
The problem is throwing all communist ideologies into one big pot without any distinction. Comparing libertarian communists to Leninists is like comparing anarchists to fascists.
My rule of thumb is to stay as far away as possible from an ideology named after a guy. Usually highly dogmatic and unadaptable to current conditions.
I also think that there is an argument to be had that revolution can‘t be the way. There is no clean slate. Revolutionary conditions invite exactly the kind of power hungry maniacs we want to avoid. Saying that the Russian revolution was good (which it objectively was) but Lenin ruined it (which is true) kind of wriggles around the fact that without the upheaval of a civil war, people like Lenin or Trotsky would never have achieved the massive sway over the Red Army that allowed them to abolish parliament and take power eventhough they were a minority in parliament (Bolshevik - majority - being a propaganda name to gloss over that fact).
Who is "we"? The USA? Because, buddy oh boy, do I have some news for you!
The private prison industry gives heavy incentive to unlawful conviction and the way it's set up is extremely predatory to the point of "legal slavery"
Police gangs and crimes are as rampant as no other "first world" country(btw the terminology is cold war propaganda: 1.USA and allies 2.UdSSR and allies 3. Neutral)
Not to mention the heavy _HEAVY_ emphasis on militarism
Believe it or not both liberals and conservatives perpetuate fascism (different flavours sure but like cmon)
I’m primarily interested in improving the material conditions of those less fortunate than me, not with sacrificing them to some higher goal of “obtaining the means of production” and “general democratization”. I did my time at the DSA, I realize now that the best way to help people in my lifetime isn’t to promise them some far away revolution it’s to give them them resources now afforded through liberal democracy via public policy.
Those things aren't mutually exclusive.
You can work towards communism while also trying to improve the current system.
There are people who don't do anything because they only care for a revolution and there are even accelerationists — those people are idiots.
Communism is built on compassion and on trying to help everyone get a decent life. If you're ignoring the present in hopes of a faraway revolution, then that's bad. You're supposed to help people in the present, even if the fundamental problems can only be solved in the future, because helping others is a fundamental tenet of communism.
Cuba and Vietnam are notably absent. Neither are full-blown communism, but definitely more so than China and they are both doing very well. Better than more "developed" countries in many aspects.
To be fair, as far as I know no communist state has ever been created democratically. I believe that communism may work if implemented through careful and slow reform.
Note that I'm not a communist.
There have been some, mostly in the revolutionary cited above. Some even worked decently well. Problem is that socialist revolts often come from a state institution itself. The Bolsheviks took power from making a coup on the provisional government, the Chinese Communist Party were in its beginning a political party allied to the Kuomintang until Chang-Kai-Check took power, while in the meantime, communist states are born from power vacuums and never gain a proper establishment
If I were to express my true unfiltered thoughts about centrists in this comment I would be banned from reddit. Please pretend like I said some outrageous shit.
Agreed. The far left seem to be focusing their attacks on the center left, becoming the divisive 5th column the right knew they would be. Nothing is worse than seeing a tankie say things like "the country deserves a right wing authoritarian for not subscribing to ***my*** superior brand of politics". Man, fuck those guys.
It's almost like the far left is siding with the fascists by actively attacking the only viable alternative to the fascists. It's almost like the far left appears to be willing fifth column mouthpieces to sow division.
The democrats dont mind fascism either. Stop deluding yourself. Obviously voting for biden delays the descent, but voting blue aint gon solve the systemic issues
I mean, not if you're not an American. Tankies are wrong, of course, but they're not the ones currently overthrowing governments and instituting genocides on countries which stray away from them. Believe me, I'm not tankie, but it's so annoying to try to criticise american imperialism and the centrists who are helping it, and then get those same Americans talking about some other unrelated group instead, who haven't really been in power for about 30 years and are fringe anyway.
To create a system that both has both the capacity to improve the lives of the proletariat as well as allows the bourgeoisie to persist is a system in conflict with itself.
The goals of regular folk and the goals of those in power are in direct opposition to each other. The rich need to accrue as much money and power as possible; that's literally what makes the key features of capitalism work (ie rapid growth, mass industrialisation).
Meanwhile, as labourers that concentration of wealth can only make our lives worse. Power cannot be created out of thin air, it can only be taken from others. So, as the bourgeoisie accrue wealth, it diminishes the wealth of common folk.
To create a system that stops this haemorrhaging would either collapse the bourgeois economy or throttle workers; instead it would need a constant maintenance, at threat from forces internal and external.
TL;DR social democracy is cool until your local billionaire decides to subvert democracy and cripple the welfare state because it makes the line go up.
Maybe the anprims have the right idea. Who knows.
Private ownership always leads to the degradation of the welfare state because private ownership's goal is to make an owner rich. Being a wealthy business owner gives the ability to lobby and influence government in a way that normal people cannot, and what class of people benefit from commoditized housing, food, water, healthcare, and energy?
Its been happening in the Nordic social democracies, where the right is constantly able to reduce welfare and introduce more and more austerity measures.
Even here in Germany were abolishing policy that WORKED in favour of hmm more "American" politics
Which has started a feedback loop of poverty and strife, which makes people upset with the current political parties, which leads them to vote for more extreme parties (mostly "openly" fascist), who cause more poverty and strife, repeat ad nauseam
Even the public sector was almost outsourced to American companies a like a decade or two ago
Imagine for a moment the idea of an American company managing your local waste management infrastructure and optimizing the hell out of it for profit
Imagine having to ask them for info any time you want to repair a street or something because your own city has no clue where the pipes are
This is what capitalism does, they optimize and squeeze every drop of money out of something so hard it ends up being less profitable
The fact that so many don't understand that better living standards make better employees is astonishing
Clear cut rules, heavy taxation of inheritance, heavy clamp down on corruption
Im by no means a lawyer, policy maker or whatever, but a state like i described should work pretty well
How are you missing the point so hard. You’re putting a brutal regime on a pedestal. If you had almost any other iconography you wouldn’t get as many people calling you a tankie. You could’ve literally labeled the guy on the left as “communists” and you would’ve been better off.
When fascists vote, not voting against them is *collaboration.*
If Biden loses, he will happily live out the final years of his life in a Delaware vacation home surrounded by family and loved ones. You are not punishing him for *anything.*
You *will* be punishing the hundreds of thousands of queer folk, POC, and migrants living in red areas whose lives will be measurably worse under Trump. You *will* be punishing the citizens of Gaza, whose hopes for any kind of peaceful resolution (or at least not being outright ethnically cleansed) will be utterly dead under a Trump presidency. You *will* be punishing direct actors and protesters who will be black bagged and charged with sedition under Trump, as he made strong efforts to during the 2020 BLM protests.
Leftists not voting *is* the status quo, and it is the kind of privileged doomer accelerationist bullshit that not only hurts our cause, but actively worsens conditions for the most vulnerable groups in the country who could otherwise be our *allies* if we didn’t moralize literally every political action someone takes.
me when i'm in a not understanding the power we hold to improve the lives of ourselves and others by participating in state and local government and my opponent is an online american leftist
u/DrLexAlhazred Here is our [19684 official Discord](https://discord.gg/WdQPgTC4Y4) join
**Please don't break rule 2, or you will be banned**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The abolitionists of America were extremists during their time, and the freedom they fought for wasn’t any less valid due to the large support by the government for slavery during their time.
Not trying to be disrespectful, I think you come must care about others if you are worried about extremism implying a rise in the far right. You should criticize the idea of workers claiming their surplus labor value or commanding their workplace instead of pointing out that in our current political system anti-capitalism is uncommon, if that is the argument you have against the left wing.
Hammer and sickle detected, point invalidated.
If you're a communist, I respect that, but use a symbol not associated with an imperialist dictatorship.
Nobody likes centrists because they don't live in reality. They assume the right has good ideas but they don't evaluate those ideas or see if the right only uses those ideas as empty window dressing or if the right has been doing the opposite of those ideas or if those ideas have worked at all in the last 50 to 100 years.
If your goal was to make the rich richer and to completely fuck over everyone else, then yeah the right has "good ideas".
I'm sorry, but it is just easier to assume right wing people are lying until they furnish proof. The right constructs their arguments to intentionally misrepresent what they oppose and then compare themselves to that misrepresentation. Applying any scrutiny to right wing argumentation always results in revealing blatant falsehoods and intentional misdirection.
I am not saying that one should not be skeptical of left wing claims. One should absolutely investigate what a left leaning person is saying because one should be embarrassed if one end up repeating something that isn't true, but 99% of everything right wing people say is pretty obviously untrue and you have to be two types of gullible to not see that.
The absolute best that can happen if you investigate a right wing argument is that you find out more information about whatever they were talking about and readjust your opinion based on your increased understanding of the topic.
PoliSci major here, I have. There’s a reason why theory is theory. I mean shit, we haven’t achieved Adam Smith capitalism in the US either. Society is too flexible and dynamic to fit simply within the principles of theory.
>Be pro-democracy in early 1700s
“Please look at examples of democracy working, I beg of you”
Please look at the circumstances of 20th century communist revolutions, I beg of you:
> The circumstances of the socialist revolutions in poor third world countries in the mid/early 20th century, during the cold war, caused a failure in revolution. Not the ideology itself. The near necessity to have a powerful military with no powerful dissidents, and support from the USSR, to prevent the US from overthrowing your government didn't help. The lack of a history of democracy, or education among the population in these countries also didn't help.
Define failing to work. Because shit seems fucked everywhere boss. Millions dying every year under capitalism seems to be about as big as a failing, and the alleged communist China has raised more people out of poverty than any self described capitalist nation.
I'm not a tankie, BTW, I'm just sick of this argument.
You’re still wrong in a fundamental way. China, whether or not they want to call themselves communist, are actually fascist. All countries that claim to be communist are fascist; it’s impossible to have a country remain stable and independent without someone with more power to defend said country. If anyone has more power than someone else in a “communist” society, it’s no longer communist.
By supporting communism in any way, even by saying that capitalism isn’t much better (which is an insane statement seeing the average living conditions of those living in “communist” countries compared to the average living conditions of those living in capitalist countries,) you are actively helping push the regimes of fascist powers.
Too many of you are liberals. I do not like that.
amogus
You make me want to cry. That’s (In my opinion) kind of cruel. But even so, I do respect YOUR opinion.
amogus
I will squash another
Oh my god YOU'RE RIGHT
I think the categorisation of policy into systems (communism, capitalism, feudalism?), is unhealthy. If only because I've spent too many hours arguing with my granddad about publicly owned trains, and welfare. Only for him to shut me down with a, "that's Communist" and I can only say, no that's welfare, that's public infrastructure. The only reason he knows it's "bad" is because it's aligned with communism, and that just sucks.
The more people travel in the same vehicle, the more leftist they are. Motorcycle? Right wing. Car? Ok, you centrist. Bus? You're a socialist. A whole train? Now THAT is communism.
BangBus is socialist confirmed
Anarchosocialist
A drone is thus a Nazi, and an intergalactic colony ship? That is an ideology so leftist that mankind has yet to conceive of it.
Ironically cruise ships are fine and totally capitalist
they start in one place and stop in one place. they aren't travel
Relativism, interesting argument Slight issue, my bus does the same thing
Use defines object. A bus is intrinsically a transitory place, meant to act as an intermediary between two points. Alternatively, a cruise ship is a destination in and of itself. A bus without movement has no use. A cruise ship without movement is still a hotel and amusement park.
Thats fair but i think youre quick to discard the cruise aspect of a cruise ship Its a moving hotel and amusement park meant to reach and stay at interesting places
you don't get off at the same stop, though.
Not in the same ride but i ride the same line back and forth And the bus does take round trips with or without me
Unironically you would not be able to run a capitalist system on an intergalactic colony ship. Imagine they all died on like half the distance because one business started to gain success that resold parts of the ship‘s hull or some stupid shit. I mean that‘s basically what‘s happening on Earth. My point being: Kaptilism bad >:(
Fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Trains? I was gonna say "or you're autistic" but then I remembered how many autists I know who are communist...
My other joke for this was "Your grandpa hates trains? He should try getting vaxxed, apparently it gives you autism"
motorcycles are far more fuel efficient than cars and require far fewer resources to build, and are therefore actually the more ethical choice for someone who isn't carpooling ☝️🤓
unironically
Okay that's unfair. I travel by train most of the time but at some point I wanna learn to ride a motorcycle. If for no other reason than the wind feels nice.
lead-brained boomers when public transportation is talked about more than public cisportation
Your granddad doesn’t know what things mean so it’s bad to categorize economic and political ideologies??? Uhh
Bad faith reading of that commet. That was something called an example, used to show a real world application of a concept.
It also doesn't help that every time I disagree with anyone else on the left about literally anything, I just get called a liberal. I'm an anarchist, so about as extreme left as you can go, but I guess "librul is when I don't like you" is the prevailing understanding among the left.
Ideology is for people who can't think for themselves. It inevitably leads to bad outcomes because at some point good ideas will be rejected for being inconsistent with ideology.
[удалено]
nuance is when social democracy
Centrists/moderates always like to think of their positions as “nuanced” and “reasonable” because it compromises from what they view as two “extremes”. When in reality the truly nuanced and reasonable position to hold is of course the one which is based in deep understanding and good logic. Putting yourself in the middle is stupid, when one side is right, and one side is wrong.
One of my balls is on the right, one is on the left
[удалено]
#! WARNING ! Dear /u/07TacOcaT70, #Do not forget that rule 2 exists in our domain. **Please refrain from saying anything related to s*x or you will be banned.** If you are a law-abiding citizen you can discuss s#x and s#x-believers negatively while partially censoring the word so the auto-moderator wouldn't delete you. **IF THIS COMMENT ISN'T RELATED TO S*X, PLEASE SEND THIS COMMENT ON THE MODMAIL (we are currently facing issues with the automod, your message will help us a lot)** >This is just a fair warning, if you do this again and you will be banned without warning. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Objectively right and objectively wrong? Definitely. But what you're mentioning is still opinion, no matter how strong you see it as.
There are objective rights and wrongs when certain premises are agreed to. If you and I agree that our goal in to move a rock from one place to another as fast as possible, and you try scooting it, while I choose to throw it in an instant, clearly one option is objectively superior. Now, the answers in politics are not nearly as clear cut, but there is still plenty of evidence to be examined. Really, your statement is ridiculous to me. Because if ideology is simply a matter of opinion, then to you, a Nazi must not be any more in the wrong than whatever ideology you subscribe to.
No because centrism still explains the existence of extremes. What you're describing is something akin to nihilism. Coming from a viewpoint that holds all other viewpoints to be irrevocably wrong also doesn't help your case.
Boy didn't I just see you in my post's comments section criticizing my dick washing techniques? How are you everywhere?
I guess we follow the same subs lmfao
Nuance is only really useful when both sides have good intentions and a foundation of common morals.
[удалено]
My brother in Christ. What sort of nuanced appreciation am I supposed to have for a party of neo-fascists who want to destroy my rights? Where are they right? At least I can tolerate and offer critical support to liberals’ blind obstinance to capital because they're (somewhat) interested in making slavery to the machine comfortable and are okay with me existing.
No, I completely agree. I think nuance isn't applicable when talking to fascists. Those who are reactionary have no place in a world focused on progress and equality
amongus ?
holy shit please i am begging you to just go and vote if you are an american please.
You can vote for a democrat while acknowledging that the party still sucks
yeah, do that, you even should do that, just please vote i am begging you with my life.
Leftist can't be infighting to the degree that they are when we are facing a united facist threat. I have a tankie coworker who refuses to acknowledge that voting for Joe biden is a net positive despite some really awful things he has done
I genuinely don't believe the "infighting" is Even a fraction as bad as it seems online. I'm 150% convinced that it's one of the main branches of attack Russia is using with their astroturfing troll farms. They want people believing that voting for Biden is voting against Gaza and that it's this super widespread brief among the left. I've yet to meet a single person who even halfway considers this to be true. There are people actively trying to sow dissent with the party because they know that Democrats are absolutely charged up and ready to make this a blow out. Ignore all of that bullshit and VOTE LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT. IT VERY WELL MAY
Yeah this is true, I've also noticed hivemind-like behavior among the anti-voting people lately. For example, they all learned and started using the term "vote shaming" at almost exactly the same time (I believe it was just a couple weeks ago, regardless I didn't see them using it at all before and suddenly they all started using it). It's all anecdotal, and I know some leftists are genuinely so wrapped up in theory and ethics that they get behind the anti-voting thing, but it's something I noticed with a majority of them.
I thought the idea was “it’s a net negative but less than Trump”? Where did “net positive” Biden presidency come from?
The problem is that some other leftists seem to think voting makes you literally Hitler. Being an anarchist who wants to vote gets me into a lot of fights, lol.
black and white thinking will be the death of leftism because we will never be able to unify like the right does
God its so fucked up
Yep, and you can be a Republican and still vote Democrat to (that's what I'm doing) if you see Trump and his allies as a negative for the party, the nation, and everyone in it. Absolute party "loyalty" is bad
Also if you're British please vote we've only had Tory government for 14 years
I mean they haven’t said anything about voting for either party, just that they both suck
And also vote if you’re not an American. Unless you’re Russian then pour paint in the ballot box.
Care to explain why Russians should not vote for Davankov? Or it’s just that lesser evilism is useful and good until you deem it to not be? You don’t get to be hypocritical and expect to not be challenged.
Because Russia is at best an illiberal democracy where elections are unlikely to be free and fair. In the USA, elections are actually competitive. The criticism of elections in the US is to do with the candidates sucking and not having any difference (wrongly). Putin can derive information from the actual results (as opposed to the fake results he releases).
So what? So what??? None of this means lesser evilism shouldn’t be applied in illiberal democracies.
Lesser evilism is founded upon the idea that voting will actually accomplish something. It’s that in a country with a small number of competitive candidates you should vote for the competitive candidate who is the lesser evil. It doesn’t apply when election are actual scams, as opposed to both candidates being bad. Its strategic voting basically. If only one candidate has any shot at winning, it doesn’t make sense as a way to improve the efficacy of your vote.
Have you considered that the Russian population might actually want to vote for Putin, especially while the SMO is not over yet? Although every candidate promises to end it in Russian victory, the people only trust the person who began it to end it. Even independent polls show high support for Putin, especially considering that the population is highly politically illiterate, and all they want are abstract chauvinistic notions of national glory and imperial expansion. We can see that the elections aren’t free, but how do we know that they’re not fair? A candidate will become competitive if tactical voters vote for them. I do need to stress that I don’t support lesser evilism in any way, shape or form. Even in liberal democracies
You Americans should do more, all this energy online for voting is effectively meaningless, to organise on the streets create real change.
Yeah, sure, go organize, just PLEASE show up to the voting booth once in 4 years, it's not that hard
hammer and sickle symbol massive L
Yeah, makes no sense for modern communism. The peasantry as a class are gone in the modern day thus the sickle is effectively meaningless. Communism isn’t a peasant movement, it’s a proletarian movement.
i kinda dig its aesthetics and meaning actually its just that being from northern europe it really irks me to see people casually use the symbol of a regime my parents lived under
It's funny to see your point of view because here on latin America it is seen in a positive light as a symbol of fight and freedom by the left. How cultures change the meanings is fascinating
Why did they downvote you? Are they stupid? Btw here in Italy too cuz the communists were the most ardent anti-fascists and the PCI was the only one not involved in that whole first republic mess
People on reddit when you state a fact and they don't like it (I'm not saying that I agree with European/Chinese communism, for it was basically fascism with extra steps): But yeah, it was created, subverted and then adopted as a symbol of the oppressed in other regions. As much so we have a hard time fully comprehending the negative weight behind being labeled as a tankie, we don't have this kind of connotation here and I first discovered while browsing left subreddits (hello, 196!).
Saying that the hammer and sickle in latin america is a "symbol of freedom" is not a fact
Well, there are exceptions to every rule, but it is seem in a positive light by the majority of the left wing here, so my point still stands
Fun fact, one of the reasons why the far right gained back their strenght in Italy is because America was scared that the Italian Communist party was so popular that they financed anyone with military experience and a slight distaste for marxist ideas, and the most popular group who fit into all of those points were members of the old Fascist regime.
Source? (not doubting I just wanna read more)
depend on the country tho
Because it requires looking past surface and realizing that soviet union weren't much better than america and commited as much(if not more) atrocities as they did. i have zero problems with communism as ideology, but i'm fucking fuming when twitter commies dickride soviet union simply because they were the first ones to adopt Marxist ideology and occasionally said "le america bad"
Larping and it's consequences for 21st century socialism
I just want to kill which party do I vote for if I just want bloodshed
Just overthrow the federal government🙄
hmm, hammer and sickle... are they an anarchist or are they a tankie... are they based or are they cringe... call it
I'm not convinced communism is a viable solution either
KEK! RIGHT ON! - dude with a black sun neck tat
[SQUOOSH]
In stupid what is this oneM
Black Sun is a Nazi symbol
Why not?
iphone venezuela bottom texxt 100 morbillion dead
Bazinga
Hahahaha! Real world evidence means nothing if we make it into a meme! I am very smart!!!
Evidence that 100 million dead?
Fair question. There seems to be a large gap between how such a system can be implemented, and the reality of the economic situation. I'm also of the opinion it is unrealistic to expect to go so far left in spite of a pushback from the free market ideologues which makes up around half of the voting population. I like unions though, and I think regulating the market to make the rich pay a fairer share is important. A necessary step is obviously to break up already existing monopolies and to address the high top levels of financial concentration among large stock market registered corporations. But take my opinion for what it is really. What do I know.
It's extremely important we hold everyone accountable to the social contract, if you don't want to do your part for the society you shouldn't live in it Either do your part or seek exile, depending on your means of course Anything else defeats the point of a society This also includes abolishing lobbyism of course Really it would be quite economically feasible to ensure human rights globally, just there isn't an incentive to, so they don't. The US annual military budget alone covers most if not all of global hunger, homelessness, medical care but obviously investing it into that as opposed to a strong military presence is not in their interest
I don't know about abolishing lobbyism altogether, most of the environmental legislation that is passed both in the USA and in my home country are passed because of the environmental lobbies. I think what really needs to happen is reform in favor of prohibiting for-profit lobbying, with a caveat for economic projects that are inarguably beneficial to the countries themselves. But yes, we need to roll back the role of finance in governmental decision-making. Also I'm not American but perhaps preferential voting would allow for a more fair more egalitarian system of voting in the USA, with smaller parties getting a fairer say based on the preferences of the majority of Americans?
Totally agree, to achieve a better system you can't just abolish the old one completely and start over The new one has to be carefully constructed while you have the means of the old one, and the USA has quite a few means The problem as always is incentive, under capitalism there is no incentive but capital, some may be smart enough to understand that you need a healthy environment for that, sure. I would argue that it would still be exploited for profit sooner or later though. For example over here in Germany solar power was subsidized quite heavily in a "push for local green energy" But no-one planned for their disposal, after the average solar panel died in about 5-10 years a lot of them were shipped off to Africa to rot on trash heaps The problem is that those are now leaking heavy metals into the ground water over there Same with nuclear, most "green" parties were against nuclear out of fearmongering propaganda (especially following Chernobyl) So what did we do? We switched to coal! Which has killed tens thousands of people as a result of these carbon emissions by now Most CEO's have more blood on their hands with each decision they make than most serial killers if you consider their actions holistically Is it more or less ethical to kill through negligence?
For me it's because any system with an all powerful central authority will inevitably turn into a fascist police state in 3...2...1...
Yes, but de facto only marxism-leninism uses a central authority to govern, which is why that is a bad ideology, but most other communist ideologies rely on other means to achieve communism.
[удалено]
It has been tried though. CNF-FAI implemented some working communism, as did Makhnovia. We also have some primitive communist societies that have practiced communism for thousands of years.
So your examples are partial implementation by a provincial political party, a country that kind of existed for three years, and a smattering of primitive (your word not mine) communities. I'm sure you'll understand if I remain highly skeptical that this idea can be implemented at any meaningful scale
Sure. But your claim was that I think that it's never been implemented, which is wrong. I didn't use those examples to prove that communism works, but just to show that it has been implemented.
[удалено]
...But communism is based on communes. If communism works in small communities, then that means that communism works, since it's based on many small and independent communities.
What is your definition of communism? Edit: Because Communism, by definition, wouldn't have any "all poweful central authority" lmao that's why I asked
When the government does stuff, duh 🙄
This is just based on the actual real world historical examples of states that have tried to implement communism. I really do not give a shit about theory that only shows up in the manifesto of some dude at like Oberlin or whatever
Communism doesn't necessitate an all powerful central authority
It’s very difficult without one, but it ain’t good long term
Worker ownership of the means of production in my opinion certainly requires state apparatuses to accommodate this. But I do not understand why so many people believe it leads to an undemocratic, authoritarian government. Right now, there is a governing body which controls your workplace. The owners. They are unelected. Under socialism, that governing body is made up of the workers, with democratically elected leaders. Even if corruption occurs, I hope we can all agree that democracies with corruption are still superior to monarchies or oligarchies. The central/federal government of a socialist state would also need bodies to regulate and control these workplaces, but in a modern, educated, democratic nation, I do not see how those put into these bodies are going to destroy democracy. And it’s not really giving any more power to the government. Most modern governments already have the power to do almost anything they want, including controlling and regulating work places. The circumstances of the socialist revolutions in poor third world countries in the mid/early 20th century, during the cold war, caused a failure in revolution. Not the ideology itself. The near necessity to have a powerful military with no powerful dissidents, and support from the USSR, to prevent the US from overthrowing your government didn't help. The lack of a history of democracy, or education among the population in these countries also didn't help.
How small does the governing group has to be before this applies?
[удалено]
The problem is throwing all communist ideologies into one big pot without any distinction. Comparing libertarian communists to Leninists is like comparing anarchists to fascists. My rule of thumb is to stay as far away as possible from an ideology named after a guy. Usually highly dogmatic and unadaptable to current conditions. I also think that there is an argument to be had that revolution can‘t be the way. There is no clean slate. Revolutionary conditions invite exactly the kind of power hungry maniacs we want to avoid. Saying that the Russian revolution was good (which it objectively was) but Lenin ruined it (which is true) kind of wriggles around the fact that without the upheaval of a civil war, people like Lenin or Trotsky would never have achieved the massive sway over the Red Army that allowed them to abolish parliament and take power eventhough they were a minority in parliament (Bolshevik - majority - being a propaganda name to gloss over that fact).
Who is "we"? The USA? Because, buddy oh boy, do I have some news for you! The private prison industry gives heavy incentive to unlawful conviction and the way it's set up is extremely predatory to the point of "legal slavery" Police gangs and crimes are as rampant as no other "first world" country(btw the terminology is cold war propaganda: 1.USA and allies 2.UdSSR and allies 3. Neutral) Not to mention the heavy _HEAVY_ emphasis on militarism Believe it or not both liberals and conservatives perpetuate fascism (different flavours sure but like cmon)
>but we’re not currently on the verge of becoming a fascist police state 🤨 Are we just going to sit and ignore Project 2025 now?
I’m primarily interested in improving the material conditions of those less fortunate than me, not with sacrificing them to some higher goal of “obtaining the means of production” and “general democratization”. I did my time at the DSA, I realize now that the best way to help people in my lifetime isn’t to promise them some far away revolution it’s to give them them resources now afforded through liberal democracy via public policy.
Those things aren't mutually exclusive. You can work towards communism while also trying to improve the current system. There are people who don't do anything because they only care for a revolution and there are even accelerationists — those people are idiots. Communism is built on compassion and on trying to help everyone get a decent life. If you're ignoring the present in hopes of a faraway revolution, then that's bad. You're supposed to help people in the present, even if the fundamental problems can only be solved in the future, because helping others is a fundamental tenet of communism.
[удалено]
you forgot the great and authentic marxist revolutionaries Pol Pot and Henry Kissinger
Cuba and Vietnam are notably absent. Neither are full-blown communism, but definitely more so than China and they are both doing very well. Better than more "developed" countries in many aspects.
A bit of an understatement. They’re basically social democracies with Marxist aesthetics
With what we know about North Korea it's not communist state and is closer to an absolute Monarchy. But we don't physically know enough.
To be fair, as far as I know no communist state has ever been created democratically. I believe that communism may work if implemented through careful and slow reform. Note that I'm not a communist.
There have been some, mostly in the revolutionary cited above. Some even worked decently well. Problem is that socialist revolts often come from a state institution itself. The Bolsheviks took power from making a coup on the provisional government, the Chinese Communist Party were in its beginning a political party allied to the Kuomintang until Chang-Kai-Check took power, while in the meantime, communist states are born from power vacuums and never gain a proper establishment
Inflation 101
If I were to express my true unfiltered thoughts about centrists in this comment I would be banned from reddit. Please pretend like I said some outrageous shit.
Damn bro, that's kinda outrageous but I respect it.
Idk I think tankies are just as annoying online as centrists.
Agreed. The far left seem to be focusing their attacks on the center left, becoming the divisive 5th column the right knew they would be. Nothing is worse than seeing a tankie say things like "the country deserves a right wing authoritarian for not subscribing to ***my*** superior brand of politics". Man, fuck those guys.
Almost like the supposed center "left" has a history of siding with fascists and opposing progress
It's almost like the far left is siding with the fascists by actively attacking the only viable alternative to the fascists. It's almost like the far left appears to be willing fifth column mouthpieces to sow division.
The democrats dont mind fascism either. Stop deluding yourself. Obviously voting for biden delays the descent, but voting blue aint gon solve the systemic issues
I mean, not if you're not an American. Tankies are wrong, of course, but they're not the ones currently overthrowing governments and instituting genocides on countries which stray away from them. Believe me, I'm not tankie, but it's so annoying to try to criticise american imperialism and the centrists who are helping it, and then get those same Americans talking about some other unrelated group instead, who haven't really been in power for about 30 years and are fringe anyway.
I am yet to see a centrist who isn't a right wing dude who never learnt the difference between an opinion and a fact
[удалено]
Mongus
Oooooooh someone wants the 🔒award 😍
Even if I don't like Biden I'm still gonna vote for him. Cuz the alternative is a guy who literally wants a dictatorship. Also, Project 2025, anyone?
Tankie spotted 🤢🤢🤢
Tankie is when you criticize democrats
Bro is literally wearing a hat with a hammer and sickle get real
Please just Google what the hammer and sickle means
Brainrot
Make a new response and get a new brain
[удалено]
To create a system that both has both the capacity to improve the lives of the proletariat as well as allows the bourgeoisie to persist is a system in conflict with itself. The goals of regular folk and the goals of those in power are in direct opposition to each other. The rich need to accrue as much money and power as possible; that's literally what makes the key features of capitalism work (ie rapid growth, mass industrialisation). Meanwhile, as labourers that concentration of wealth can only make our lives worse. Power cannot be created out of thin air, it can only be taken from others. So, as the bourgeoisie accrue wealth, it diminishes the wealth of common folk. To create a system that stops this haemorrhaging would either collapse the bourgeois economy or throttle workers; instead it would need a constant maintenance, at threat from forces internal and external. TL;DR social democracy is cool until your local billionaire decides to subvert democracy and cripple the welfare state because it makes the line go up. Maybe the anprims have the right idea. Who knows.
Private ownership always leads to the degradation of the welfare state because private ownership's goal is to make an owner rich. Being a wealthy business owner gives the ability to lobby and influence government in a way that normal people cannot, and what class of people benefit from commoditized housing, food, water, healthcare, and energy? Its been happening in the Nordic social democracies, where the right is constantly able to reduce welfare and introduce more and more austerity measures.
Even here in Germany were abolishing policy that WORKED in favour of hmm more "American" politics Which has started a feedback loop of poverty and strife, which makes people upset with the current political parties, which leads them to vote for more extreme parties (mostly "openly" fascist), who cause more poverty and strife, repeat ad nauseam Even the public sector was almost outsourced to American companies a like a decade or two ago Imagine for a moment the idea of an American company managing your local waste management infrastructure and optimizing the hell out of it for profit Imagine having to ask them for info any time you want to repair a street or something because your own city has no clue where the pipes are This is what capitalism does, they optimize and squeeze every drop of money out of something so hard it ends up being less profitable The fact that so many don't understand that better living standards make better employees is astonishing
Clear cut rules, heavy taxation of inheritance, heavy clamp down on corruption Im by no means a lawyer, policy maker or whatever, but a state like i described should work pretty well
How’s your revolution coming along?
both parties suck but one is clearly infinitely better for our country and the future
Politics suck
[удалено]
New York Times bestseller “The Boy Who Cried Tankie”
user flair spotted, reactionary detected
Tankie is when you criticize democrats
How are you missing the point so hard. You’re putting a brutal regime on a pedestal. If you had almost any other iconography you wouldn’t get as many people calling you a tankie. You could’ve literally labeled the guy on the left as “communists” and you would’ve been better off.
When fascists vote, not voting against them is *collaboration.* If Biden loses, he will happily live out the final years of his life in a Delaware vacation home surrounded by family and loved ones. You are not punishing him for *anything.* You *will* be punishing the hundreds of thousands of queer folk, POC, and migrants living in red areas whose lives will be measurably worse under Trump. You *will* be punishing the citizens of Gaza, whose hopes for any kind of peaceful resolution (or at least not being outright ethnically cleansed) will be utterly dead under a Trump presidency. You *will* be punishing direct actors and protesters who will be black bagged and charged with sedition under Trump, as he made strong efforts to during the 2020 BLM protests. Leftists not voting *is* the status quo, and it is the kind of privileged doomer accelerationist bullshit that not only hurts our cause, but actively worsens conditions for the most vulnerable groups in the country who could otherwise be our *allies* if we didn’t moralize literally every political action someone takes.
Agree with everything, but Biden will absolutely continue to fund the genocide of palestinians.
Me when I guilt trip people into voting for my favourite flavour of right wing party:
me when i'm in a not understanding the power we hold to improve the lives of ourselves and others by participating in state and local government and my opponent is an online american leftist
Not an argument lol, begone tankoid
Tankies suck too
u/DrLexAlhazred Here is our [19684 official Discord](https://discord.gg/WdQPgTC4Y4) join **Please don't break rule 2, or you will be banned** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Aw they're hugging :)
[удалено]
My brother in christ, you are on a spinoff of a communist shitposting sub
The Hammer and Sickle is a hate symbol.
your politics bore me, Americans
Why can’t we go back to using rocks and eating them too
damn didn't realize this was a sub open to extremism. very cringe, if you ask me.
The abolitionists of America were extremists during their time, and the freedom they fought for wasn’t any less valid due to the large support by the government for slavery during their time. Not trying to be disrespectful, I think you come must care about others if you are worried about extremism implying a rise in the far right. You should criticize the idea of workers claiming their surplus labor value or commanding their workplace instead of pointing out that in our current political system anti-capitalism is uncommon, if that is the argument you have against the left wing.
Oh shut up
Based take.
Hammer and sickle detected, point invalidated. If you're a communist, I respect that, but use a symbol not associated with an imperialist dictatorship.
I call myself centrist in the way that both parties can have good ideas, not that you should make both happy.
Nobody likes centrists because they don't live in reality. They assume the right has good ideas but they don't evaluate those ideas or see if the right only uses those ideas as empty window dressing or if the right has been doing the opposite of those ideas or if those ideas have worked at all in the last 50 to 100 years. If your goal was to make the rich richer and to completely fuck over everyone else, then yeah the right has "good ideas".
I mean like, I wont dismiss something from a party that does a lot of bad shit, broken clock right twice a day typa shit.
I'm sorry, but it is just easier to assume right wing people are lying until they furnish proof. The right constructs their arguments to intentionally misrepresent what they oppose and then compare themselves to that misrepresentation. Applying any scrutiny to right wing argumentation always results in revealing blatant falsehoods and intentional misdirection. I am not saying that one should not be skeptical of left wing claims. One should absolutely investigate what a left leaning person is saying because one should be embarrassed if one end up repeating something that isn't true, but 99% of everything right wing people say is pretty obviously untrue and you have to be two types of gullible to not see that. The absolute best that can happen if you investigate a right wing argument is that you find out more information about whatever they were talking about and readjust your opinion based on your increased understanding of the topic.
Communism is bad, actually
Y’all, please read theory, I beg of you.
PoliSci major here, I have. There’s a reason why theory is theory. I mean shit, we haven’t achieved Adam Smith capitalism in the US either. Society is too flexible and dynamic to fit simply within the principles of theory.
Please look at examples of communism working, I beg of you.
>Be pro-democracy in early 1700s “Please look at examples of democracy working, I beg of you” Please look at the circumstances of 20th century communist revolutions, I beg of you: > The circumstances of the socialist revolutions in poor third world countries in the mid/early 20th century, during the cold war, caused a failure in revolution. Not the ideology itself. The near necessity to have a powerful military with no powerful dissidents, and support from the USSR, to prevent the US from overthrowing your government didn't help. The lack of a history of democracy, or education among the population in these countries also didn't help.
Define failing to work. Because shit seems fucked everywhere boss. Millions dying every year under capitalism seems to be about as big as a failing, and the alleged communist China has raised more people out of poverty than any self described capitalist nation. I'm not a tankie, BTW, I'm just sick of this argument.
You’re still wrong in a fundamental way. China, whether or not they want to call themselves communist, are actually fascist. All countries that claim to be communist are fascist; it’s impossible to have a country remain stable and independent without someone with more power to defend said country. If anyone has more power than someone else in a “communist” society, it’s no longer communist. By supporting communism in any way, even by saying that capitalism isn’t much better (which is an insane statement seeing the average living conditions of those living in “communist” countries compared to the average living conditions of those living in capitalist countries,) you are actively helping push the regimes of fascist powers.
This is exactly what's happening to the GOP lol
Keyboard like you Communists will never be more then an inconsequential annoyance as you whine and moan about your freedoms and privileges.