In b4 someone calls me a tankie
Needs to redesign the background though, these colours will never work on boomers , they are programmed to never trust red, even in traffic lights
If he really said that then why did he do the exact opposite
Never assume sincerity or consistency from politicians.
In fact, I’d go a step further and say Reagan, like most other liberalists, does not have a cohesive worldview based on material reality, but rather a syncretic, self-contradictory hodge-podge of ideals and ideas which sound good.
if he really said that
He had Alzheimer’s
My parents somehow dislike Reagan. My father remembers the job market as being horrible during his term, among other things.
If only they could apply everything they disliked about Reagan to the current regime.
This is fun. I’m doing Mao Zedong.
While I like the sentiment, Ho Chi Minh very intentionally styled his english after speeches given by americans like Regan (genius propaganda move), which is why his quotes sound so much more plausible as legitimate regan lines. Mao wasn’t eloquent in nearly the same way, which is a big part of why those so clearly aren’t regan quotes. It just doesn’t sound like him.
I appreciate the irony of the third one.
Try quotes supporting minorities made by Trump. That will really confuse them.
There was that time where trools were posting Biden quotes but using Trump’s face in conservative spaces and getting a lot of likes.
“trools”?
Mao and Reagan believe all the same things they just have opposite beliefs on what is good and bad.
radicalizing people in the name of reaganomics
It’s funny cause Vietnam’s richest billionaire just escaped the death sentence for allegations over 8 crimes
I wouldn’t call you a tankie for using quotes of faux communist figures saying genuinely pro-communism things.
Their messaging is usually on point. Its their actions where they shift from communism to authoritarian state capitalism or outright fascism.
Lol I bet you think communism can only ever exist as a protest movement and the minute communists gain any kind of political power you immediately call them authoritarian/tankie/state capitalist/fascist. Take this idea to a meeting of any real world communist party and you’ll be laughed at.
If I’m wrong, tell me what you consider to be genuine communism as opposed to “faux” communism.
If I’m wrong, tell me what you consider to be genuine communism as opposed to “faux” communism.
If we’re all equals, why am I not allowed to say what I want to when the General Secretary just put up 100 foot tall billboards saying that we must murder the priests?
technically countries like china, cuba, vietnam, laos and the dprk are NOT even “communist countries”, but rather actually-existing-socialist countries - they HAVEN’T even achieved the goal of communism which is a classless moneyless and stateless society. seriously!
You’re literally yelling at someone who shares your goals. You suck at lefting.
Remember it’s only leftist infighting when you disagree with them. If they disagree with you it’s because you’re a shitlib or something.
deleted by creator
you should really study socialist/communist theory. in fact, does anyone have any tips on making studying socialist theory easy and fun and such?
Real communist logic is that these governments were supposed to be temporary. They’re supposed to exist to transition into actual communism, where the people control the state and own the means of production, not a dictatorship. The states that call themselves communist but have a dictator are, at best, the same as a caterpillar calling itself a butterfly. Maybe it aspires to be that, but it isn’t yet, and may never be.
400-500 years is technically temporary.
Which communist states have a dictator?
Maybe you missed the point. Real communist countries have no dictators or any ruling class. But there aren’t any real communist countries. Countries like China that have dictators and claim to be communist aren’t.
Communist countries are called “communist” not because they’ve actually achieved communism but because they’re run by communists who want to achieve communism.
Any country that is run by communists will be called a dictatorship whether or not they actually have a dictator. China is an example of this. You know nothing about how the Chinese government operates. You were just told they were a dictatorship and you believed it. China has better democratic outcomes than most liberal democracies (assuming that actually exists)
I think you missed the point. An actual communist would be trying to give up their power. Meanwhile China is increasingly capitalist.
Also, perception is not reality. I think we all know that. Why did you specifically choose to show the democratic perception index?
An actual communist would first be trying to build socialism. Which is what China is doing.
And it’s perception because you can’t actually quantify how democratic a country is. You can only look at whether or not people feel like their government is representing them. If people don’t feel like their government represents them, then it isn’t democratic and needs to he changed.
Being brainwashed doesn’t mean they’re actually democratic. Unless you define a good outcome as being blindly misinformed and happy about it.
China has one leader, who is leader for life. His rule is absolute. Call it what you will.China has one leader, who is leader for life.
Are you saying that as a general statement about leadership in the PRC? If so, then you can easily disprove it with the previous leaders:
- Jiang Zemin (died 2022) - paramount leader until 2002, retired in the run-up to the 16th National Congress where Jintao had massive support to become the new party General Secretary
- Hu Jintao (alive) - paramount leader until 2012, when Xi was elected General Secretary by the 18th National Congress
To remain the party leader, you have to retain the support of the party. It’s not like a monarchy where there’s a right to be leader for life.
Saying a billion people are actually all just brainwashed is racist cope.
Congress, which has over 1000 members is the one in charge of China and that’s pretty tricky to deal with so it’s no wonder they appoint someone to be the leader to keep things organised.
How did you come to this conclusion about the person you are replying to? Please use direct quotes.
Okay.
“Countries like China that have dictators and claim to be communist aren’t.”
Real communists understand the very mixed history of “communist” countries of the past and present. There are virtually zero actually communist countries in the world. That is factually true. What you want to believe is tankie logic… You are a tankie if you disagree with the statement: There is no such thing as communism with a ruling class.
There are virtually zero actually communist countries in the world. That is factually true.
I’m not a marxist, but this point doesn’t make sense to me. “Communist countries” aren’t called that because they have somehow managed to achieve a communist society (which would be impossible to exist in a capitalist world), but because they are ruled by a governent that is ruled by a group/party which is (or at the very least claims to be) ideologically communist…
No, they are not ideologically communist. A ruling party is by definition not communist. They are diometrically opposed.
Even having an identifiable “owning class”, let alone anything close to a “ruling class” is also definitionally not communist.
No, they are not ideologically communist. A ruling party is by definition not communist. They are diometrically opposed.
To clarify, ‘ideologically communist’ means being part of a movement aiming to build a ‘communist society’ (communist mode of production, classless, moneyless, etc.). It makes sense for someone to call themselves a communist despite owning money, being in a social class, living under a state. In fact, a member of the bourgeoisie can be a communist, so long as they are actually helping to build the communist movement - it just means they’re a class traitor. A communist who is part of the ruling class is a paradox, not a contradiction.
The communist movement does not imply prefiguration, where the movement has to immediately begin reflecting their ideal society - anarchist tendencies tend to prefer prefiguration as a transitional method, while Leninist tendencies tend to see overemphasis on it as utopian and reckless, favoring vanguardism, that ruling party you mentioned.
I see no reason why vanguardism contradicts the communist movement. The ideologically-driven ruling party aims to build a surrounding environment which will gradually abolish itself (‘withering away of the state’). This is a paradox, but not a contradiction. Their ruling party aims to be temporary, seen as a necessary step to make it possible to build that communist society.
No, they are not ideologically communist. A ruling party is by definition not communist. They are diometrically opposed.
Being ideologically communist simply means that you believe the ideal society is a communist society. Theoretically, you could be the king of britain and still be a communist.
I’m sure there are many people who are members of communist parties who are not actual communists, but there are some true believers who think they are working towards a communist society in the far future by building up state power in order to “compete” with capitalist/imperialist forces.
Again, I doubt their methods will work. I don’t think you can work towards a stateless society by strenghtening the state. But I’m not gonna deny their ideals because I don’t like their approach.
No, dipshit. I desperately do hope the ideals of communism come to fruition and that I live to see them in my lifetime.
But no self proclaimed communist nation has ever even remotely bodied the core principles of communism.
Most importantly the proletariat owning the means of production and the elimination of the system of capital.
This is some “if they’re communist why haven’t they pressed the big red communism button?” Shit.
Socialism is the process between capitalism and communism. It’s not something that happens over night. Right now China for example has 60% of their gdp coming from state owned enterprises. They support workers buying shares of the companies they work at. They’ve made heaps of progress building socialism.
China is objectively not socialist
Don’t get me wrong, they’ve done FAR more for their working class as of late than the US has since FDR. However, you’re delusional if you think they’re socialist.
Socialist societies
- Give the means of production to the proletariat. Not the state.
- Force the state to exist solely as a tool of the working class. The state rules China’s working class. Not vice versa
- Eliminates the system of capital. China has become increasingly state capitalist and just plain old capitalist over the years. That’s not socialism
- Eliminates the investment/owning class and redistributes their private property as public property for the benefit of the proletariat. China, although far better at policing their billionaires than most nations, still fundamentally fails to eliminate them unless they go against, specifically, the CCP’s interests, which isn’t the proletariat.
And that isn’t even taking into account China’s imperial actions such as taking over Tibet, invading Vietnam, neocolonialism in developing nations, and wasting countless billions on saber rattling Taiwan rather than reinvesting that into its people.
This isn’t a “they’re getting to it” thing. This is a “they ultimately don’t fucking care about communism” thing.
Again, socialism isn’t something that just happens overnight. China is socialist in that they’re building socialism. Not that they’ve actually achieved it.
And no China is not imperialist unless you’re using a shitty “imperialism is when countries do things” and not what actual leftists mean when they talk about imperialism which is a inevitability when capitalism can’t keep profits improving at their current rates because they’ve fully expanded above capacity in the countries they are in.
- You’re delusional
- Your entire belief here relies on the good intentions of the CCP to willingly give up power to the proletariat one day. Things like Tianamen Square or Hong Kong prove they’re only going to ever want to remain as the autocratic dictators they are, thus abandoning socialism/communism.
- You still don’t understand what socialism nor communism is. I highly recommend you actually read the Communist Manifesto instead of whatever tankie bullshit you’ve been reading.
- China is objectively imperial. Again and in no order: Vietnam, Taiwan, Tibet, Neo-Colonialism, Khemer Rouge (kinda mixes into Neo Colonialism), Kashmir, etc.
- You’re delusional
No u
- Your entire belief here relies on the good intentions of the CCP to willingly give up power to the proletariat one day.
The proletariat are IN POWER. How do explain billionaires getting executed for committing crimes as opposed to a slap on the wrist and loads of photos of then celebrating it up with other asshole rich politicians? That’s not a capitalist country where capitalists are in charge of the government, that’s a government run by the people in charge of the capitalists.
Things like Tianamen Square or Hong Kong prove they’re only going to ever want to remain as the autocratic dictators they are, thus abandoning socialism/communism.
You’re just deep throating western propaganda. If a country was actually a dictatorship and an enemy of the west it would be described as a dictatorship, and if it wasn’t a dictatorship, it would still be described as a dictatorship. So you’ve actually got to do a little more thinking and research into the topic instead of parroting what you heard from western media. Like the Tiananmen square protest where people where straight up lynching cops and setting ablaze military vehicles. But I suppose you only understand it as the place where people were squashed by tanks running everyone over even though the famous tankman pictures comes from a video of tanks leaving the square where this supposed massacre happened. Tanks that apparently had just got done squishing hundreds of people suddenly stopping for one guy and letting that one guy climb up top of a tank, talk to the guy inside it, and leave. You even bring up Hong Kong for fucks sakes. As EVIDENCE. A straight up colony being returned is evidence in your eyes of a country being an autocratic dictatorship. You are not someone who knows anything about China. You were told China was bad because of western propaganda and believed that completely and so literally anything China does is evidence for it. Xi Jinping could take a shit in the toilet tomorrow and if you were there to see it, you would take a photo of it and send it to me with a smug look on your face saying “see, I told you they were an autocratic dictatorship”.
- You still don’t understand what socialism nor communism is. I highly recommend you actually read the Communist Manifesto instead of whatever tankie bullshit you’ve been reading.
I really think you need a read of the communist manifesto. And don’t stop there eitherm read up on some shit about China that doesn’t involve western media intentionally villainising them. And read up on what imperialism is because…
- China is objectively imperial. Again and in no order: Vietnam, Taiwan, Tibet, Neo-Colonialism, Khemer Rouge (kinda mixes into Neo Colonialism), Kashmir, etc.
You clearly have no fucking clue what that is either. Imperialism is when profits can’t be maintained at the rate they are under capitalism so the capitalist class resorts to measures like colonialism to expand markets and get access to cheaper resources which raises profits. Imperialism isn’t just when a country does things I don’t like. Like China attacking Vietnam was bad, but that was because of the sino-soviet split and China fearing a vietnam-soviet alliance not imperialism. Tibet was a part of China, they were a literal slave state and now they enjoy the same rights as everyone else does in China.
And Taiwan. Oh my god I can’t dude. You’re killing me. Taiwan is an example of Chinese imperialism??? My guy Taiwan exists because of a civil war that never ended. Not just any civil war either but one where one side was communist. In your enlightened “umm I think you need to read the communist manifesto buddy” eyes if a civil war erupts in a country because communists what a communist government, then that makes them imperialist. Wow.
You will never see them because they are fantasy. The “not real communism” thing has always been a hilariously bad argument. It absolutely reeks of western-centric liberal democracy and a lack of understanding of theory. And that’s why you will never have political power, because you have a contradictory idea of communism. All rhetoric and no substance.
A so-called communist who just happens to hate all major communist movements of the past, and dwells on the biggest liberal instance of the fediverse, that’s like some kind of ironic joke.
You will never see them because they are fantasy. The “not real communism” thing has always been a hilariously bad argument.
Its just factual reality.
No self proclaimed communist country is communist, socialist, or even leftist on most issues.
I beg you to counter this reality with any evidence whatsoever that isn’t typical regurgitated tankie smooth brain bullshit.
It absolutely reeks of western-centric liberal democracy and a lack of understanding of theory.
Do tell me how the massacre of his own citizens and the gulag system of Stalin’s reign fits the ideals of Marx.
How does collectivizing and reaping all the value from the labor of the captive peasants fit the ideals of proletariat rule?
Tell me how the Kim Dynasty forcing their people into isolation, concentration camps and to worship their leader as a god, gives its working class the means of production.
Explain how China expanding into Tibet, starving 40 million of its own people, invading Vietnam and massacring student protestors in Tianamen Square, spreads the freedom and prosperity Marx preached for the working class.
We can walk through every self proclaimed communist nation and completely dismantle their claims of communism by simply observing their actions.
You clearly don’t understand anything about the theory of communism whatsoever.
Spread your psychological projection elsewhere.
And that’s why you will never have political power, because you have a contradictory idea of communism. All rhetoric and no substance.
You know who never got any real political power in self proclaimed communist nations?
The fucking proletariat
A so-called communist who just happens to hate all major communist movements of the past,
Yeah, I tend to hate communist movements that aren’t actually communist movements and instead result in autocratic tyranny over the proletariat, sometimes putting them in a far worse position than they were in previously.
A foreign concept to tankies like you, I’m sure, but real communists actually want to achieve communism.
This takes yet another foreign concept to you tankies, which is
- Having standards
- Only supporting movements that actually provably benefit the working class
- Actually trying to fucking achieve communism.
and dwells on the biggest liberal instance of the fediverse, that’s like some kind of ironic joke.
Hey dipshit, take a moment to look where the fuck you’re dwelling right now.
And this place, unlike the bullshit faux communist tankie safe space you frequent like some sort of deranged MAGAt Facebook boomer does to Trump pages, actually welcomes discussion and promotion of communist ideals. Not the dumbfuck apologetics to fascists who slapped a “communist” aesthetic onto their reign of terror.
What do you consider to be genuine communism?
Nice strawman you got there.
I can’t imagine what it would look like, on fire.
The current potus is fascist as he is thinks that antifia is a terrorist organization. He is also an authoritarian as he uses his new gistopo to round up immigrates. He is also using state capitalism to inrich himself and his buddies as he helps keep the a.i. bubble going. You don’t need communism to be all those things. You can be a diaper potus and still be called those things.
I used to attribute Sandor Clegane quotes over the top of images of Winston Churchill but this is way better
I’d probably pick quotes that don’t specifically mention “running class” directly, kinda gives the game away.
Way too many complex words and phrases for him though
But not for the mythical Great President Regan in their heads. They do the same with Trump; build up an imaginary figure around the real person and see the imaginary as reality.
They tuk ir jawbs!!!
I know a lot of people look down on trolling, but this plainly reveals that it can be used for God’s work.
“God” is a consummate asshole.
We all deserve better.
edit: Perhaps, in this context, one might say “Doing the hordes’ work” or similar. 🤌🏼🖖🏼✊🏼
By God I meant Ganesh, he is hardcore and everybody of refinement thinks “Ganesh” when they read “God”, it’s just too boring to say Ganesh every single time.
You’re not saying that Ganesh is an asshole, are you? I swear to God…
Ganepati ❤️, patron deity of motorcyclists and skateboarders.
Swear to Ganesh and I’ll believe you. 🤪
I swear to Ganesh that he has become my favorite major deity of ALL TIME. If I am lying, may my sexual organs wither, turn black, and fall off.
I was pissed at Yahweh right at the start, Genesis (the first book of the Bible) is the absolute worst religious origin story that I’ve ever read. Seriously, read it, it’s comically bad and I don’t get it.
I haven’t read everything about Him (Ganesh), but in everything I’ve read so far He absolutely kicks ass.
Truth! 🥰🤘🏼
Except the rich enjoy way more rights and privileges, including child rape and ignoring any and all laws.
Not bad… People think Reagan famously said back in the 80’s that it was essential for the workers to not give up their arms, when it was Marx. Nice that you’re keeping up a long tradition of mis-attribution WRT Reagan.
Godspeed my good man!
Is this what happens when you listen to “We Didn’t Start The Fire” backwards?
Fire the start, didn’t we?
It’s Yoda admitting to arson.
Come on guy, he’s just asking questions. No crime in that!
– Some conservative probably
