Anonymous #1 16h

Usually bc countries that aren’t poor have less of a reason to revolt against their leaders USSR started as a country of farming peasants, same with China But that’s never mentioned now, is it? 😂

2

Anonymous #1 16h

China isn’t and that’s because they didn’t fall to Western intervention

-1

Anonymous #3 16h

I also honestly don't really want any government collusion with industry besides to help restore and protect the environment

6

Anonymous #1 16h

Poor communist countries are poor because of the US and Europe doing everything to kill an my competent communist leader and replacing them with puppet leaders

0

Anonymous #1 16h

And the capitalist countries ain’t even rich, it’s just the 1% that is. For example, USA

4

Anonymous OP 16h

Arguable that one of the main reasons China isn't poor is their failure to truly introduce communism and the free markets they allow to exist

6

Also GDP is naturally gonna favor capitalist policies bc they allow wealthy people to hoard wealth

4

Anonymous #3 16h

Not at all. Capitalists love to say China isn’t a communist country but then why does the US not do the same. China IS communist, and they are being as communist as possible in the modern world.

0

Anonymous #3 16h

Yep. Funny how China was dirt poor up until the 80s when Deng Xiaoping started the free market economic reforms It started with Shenzhen, which they designated a Special Economic Zone… modeled after British Hong Kong

5

Anonymous #3 16h

Communism doesn’t mean totalitarian. You can have communism and democracy, just like we have capitalism and an authoritarian regime in the US rn

6

Anonymous OP 16h

Actually, this is objectively wrong. The median American (yes Median, not Average) makes more than 98% of all people on Earth. So no… it’s not “just the 1%.” The United States 🇺🇸 is statistically a very prosperous country by global standards

1

Anonymous #4 16h

Human nature has nothing to do with this. It’s purely science. If we build systems that don’t reward greed, then nobody gets greedy but when we have a system like capitalism which rewards greed, everyone is forced to be greedy.

0

Anonymous OP 16h

China, in a lot of ways, isn't very admirable. Their human rights are lacking, their state power is borderline autocratic, and the boosted economy isn't even enough to make up for this in a lot of rural areas. I do think that we would see economic benefit if we were to open the floodgates of our markets as they have, but I also think that the economy isn't the only factor we should be paying attention to.

4

Anonymous #1 16h

It is literally not lol. You said the average American makes more than 98% of all people on Earth, but that’s only because most people on Earth either, do not need to make that much just to survive or, they do not have the opportunity to make that much.

1

Anonymous #1 16h

And like I said, the US isn’t rich. Instead of trying to compare the people to other countries, compare them to each other in their own country. The average American makes significantly less than any billionaire. And “significantly” is a vague word.

1

Anonymous #3 16h

What you said about China is only propaganda, so I would say do your own research but, their human rights are not lacking, and although they are not perfect, providing the basic necessities, such as food, water, and shelter, for every person in china, has always been one of the main goals for the Chinese government. So they put the people first. And the only reason there are rural areas is because the process of lifting people out of poverty is a continuous one that they work through every year.

0

Anonymous OP 16h

I'd much rather have actual human rights (freedom of religion, free speech, right to privacy, etc) than a government meal plan and a coupon to live in the projects

4

Anonymous #3 16h

Also, China is not autocratic because that would mean only one person has most/all of the power, like in a monarchy. The government is a party of people who actually work for the benefit of the country and its citizens, and the reason they are still in power is because the people actually like their government. Voting still happens.

0

Anonymous OP 16h

No autocracy can also mean when power is concentrated in a small group

3

Anonymous OP 16h

China is autocratic because it’s an authoritarian one-party state. The CCP has a monopoly on political power.

5

Anonymous #3 16h

It also isn’t government “collusion” with industry, because the government and industry would be owned and controlled by the common people. It’s collective ownership and decision making

8

Anonymous #3 16h

Go look up what the “projects” they live in look like then. And in China, people have all those freedoms lol. Most people are just not religious, free speech is not a crime(they can protest whenever), and their privacies are intact. The only difference is that their government actually works for them and not for billionaires

0

Anonymous OP 16h

You can't really have communism when people can just vote it away because that is what they will do

1

Anonymous #5 16h

It is government collusion with industry, they are supposed to be entirely separate groups.

0

Anonymous #3 16h

Says who? Are you the absolute authority on government and industry? And if so, do you oppose the subsidies given to large American corporations? That’s government collusion with industry, no?

5

Anonymous OP 16h

Thanks for giving me a chance to cherry pick a really bad photo of tofu dreg

4

Anonymous #2 16h

Ok, I’ll agree on that, but that still doesn’t make them a bad government. WHY? Because they ACTUALLY work for the PEOPLE. If people are able to live well under the CCP, then they are fulfilling their obligations.

0

Anonymous OP 16h

They can protest and say whatever they want except if it goes against the one party autocratic government

5

Anonymous OP 16h

They literally famously sent 11 million Muslims to concentration camps over their ethno religious backgrounds

4

Anonymous #3 16h

Government collusion with industry is literally happening in America as we speak, except the corporations are the ones controlling the government.

4

Anonymous OP 16h

Exactly this, and Marxism doesn’t call for immediate dissolution of the state, but rather for this type of incentive restructuring and dissolution of economic class, which will gradually lead the people and the state to become truly one and the same, rather than the state being a separate entity of class enforcement and control. This is what’s actually meant by “withering away of the state”

5

Anonymous #3 16h

You are very bad at doing your research lol. When was this photo taken? By who? Where was it taken?

0

Anonymous #3 16h

How many no kings protests have happened in America and how many things have changed?

0

Anonymous OP 16h

Yeah and despite that being on a much smaller scale than nationalizing every industry in the country, the collusion has already led to serious fucking problems

-1

Anonymous #1 16h

Let’s also not forget that China lifted 800 MILLION people out of extreme poverty within decades even before reintroducing some limited market mechanisms

5

Anonymous #2 16h

Yeah I do oppose mass subsidization for the most part, and especially bailouts given to major corporations where it's not 100% necessary

5

Anonymous #5 16h

Also killed 80 million in the process

-1

Anonymous #3 16h

Hey, I appreciate the consistency.

4

Anonymous #3 15h

Famines kill more in countries and regions with more poor people It happened because of incompetence, but famines happen everywhere

6

Anonymous #3 15h

And this was a region historically prone to catastrophic, cyclical famines, which has not had one since

1

Anonymous #2 15h

Also killed 2 million in a political purge

0

Anonymous #3 15h

Yeah, that was fucking brutal and unnecessary

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Buddy you really do not want to get in a death toll debate on the side of capitalism, you’re losing that by orders of magnitude

1

Anonymous #2 15h

List just goes on and on with the Chinese, and these same ideas are repeated over and over throughout history (oppression of political dissidents, oppression of non state sponsored religion, censorship, killings). If a capitalist country had made even half of these supposed blunders then you guys would be calling for their leaders head on a pike, just saying.

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Dawg I don’t support the CCP 😭

1

Anonymous #5 15h

China’s population in 1978 was 950 million. The idea that they “lifted 800 MILLION people out of extreme poverty” before market reforms is such a blatant lie lmaooooo ❌

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Buddy, the US has been doing WORSE since its creation😭 the US was created through a genocide, developed through slavery, and has killed millions of people all over the world and continues to do so. European countries have colonized and stolen from African countries for generations, and have committed genocides in Africa. Capitalist countries have BEEN doing worse than China has ever done.

1

Anonymous OP 15h

And that is not counting the amount of wars they have created just for the sake of profit.

1

Anonymous #3 15h

They have and we are, for example what happened to the 5+ million indigenous that were living in what’s now the U.S.? How many people died in the chattel slavery, indentured servitude, and brutal colonialism that the West is built on? How many Americans have died because they couldn’t access healthcare or housing? And we can’t forget the difference in population sizes either

2

Anonymous OP 15h

Yes, you could easily calculate a death toll of capitalism in the BILLIONS with the same logic that is used against socialism

3

Anonymous OP 15h

China still practices what we would consider slavery, is actively committing genocide against Uyghurs, is openly planning to commit genocide against the Taiwanese, and has made no attempt to pay reparations to these people. The US government freed all the slaves and stopped committing genocide before either of us were born, alongside paying out reparations to American Indians and African American slave descendants.

0

Anonymous #3 15h

Have you been to China?

3

Anonymous #1 15h

Buddy I don't even like going to Europe because of all the rights I lose, why on God's green Earth would I step foot in Communist China?

-2

Anonymous #3 15h

I’m American and I love the freedom to carry a machine gun and go bankrupt over medical bills! Yeehaw!!!

3

Anonymous #3 15h

Yeah it shows. Travel more. Your world view is limited. Often, you’ll find the reality on the ground isn’t what you read in your reports.

4

Anonymous #3 15h

the US government did not free all slaves. Emancipation was a wartime measure that initially only applied to Confederate states. Enslaved people in border states weren’t covered. Most of them weren’t actually freed until the 13th Amendment, and even then faced immediate re-enslavement through convict leasing and Black Codes.

1

Anonymous #3 15h

China is not actively committing genocide against the Uyghurs; they have treat them horribly at times, but more akin to Japanese Internment or Indian schools in the U.S. than to something like the holocaust. And the worst of it is no longer happening. Your side also ONLY cares about Muslims in this one context. The U.S. has absolutely not made any meaningful reparations to Natives or African Americans, and to suggest so is laughable. Taiwanese is not an ethnicity and I’d like your evidence

1

Anonymous #2 15h

If you own an actual machine gun and are going bankrupt over medical bills odds are thats a matter of priorities and not financial inability

1

Anonymous #5 15h

And WE still practice what I would consider slavery in multiple contexts

4

Anonymous #3 15h

The U.S. still practices what we would consider slavery, is actively financing the genocide of the Palestinians, is openly planning to commit genocide against transgender people, and has made no attempt to pay reparations to these people.

4

Anonymous #1 15h

You still didn't answer my question, why would I want to go to China?

1

Anonymous #5 15h

genocide isn’t just the Holocaust tho, Uyghur genocide denialism is kinda weird

0

Anonymous #3 15h

To open your mind, and make your own decisions about the country

1

Anonymous #1 15h

To number 1, I admittedly misspoke slightly and market reforms were taking place for a lot of that. But the figure is accurate, and all the market mechanisms remain state controlled with significant central planning, and were largely necessary because of Western interference

1

Anonymous OP 15h

Issue 1, "To open your mind", alternative solution- Shrooms Issue 2, "make your own decisions about the country", alternative solution- I can make an informed decision about a country and their politics without subjecting myself to being inside of it

0

Anonymous #3 15h

Funny because Smith talks about that in Wealth of Nations. The whole “laissez faire” bullshit about business and government being separate from one another yet you’ll see that Elon dicksuck on here talk about how privatization of roadways and making air a commodity are freaking epic bacon sauce!

10

Anonymous #3 15h

The US never paid any reparations to black Americans, to this day, even though they had made a few promises. Couldn’t even fulfill those

1

Anonymous #5 15h

The USSR also similarly lifted millions from poverty, skyrocketed literacy, etc., and there are many other examples that were going well before imperialistic western intervention

5

Anonymous #3 15h

You blinded by nationalism

4

Anonymous #5 15h

USSR also killed 10 million, and this one was very clearly targeted towards an ethnic minority that is still being targeted by the Russian regime to this day

-1

Anonymous OP 15h

I wouldn't really consider myself a nationalist, I love America for her ideals not because of some blind faith in the nation

0

Anonymous #3 15h

And 1- that’s stupid, this is why you can’t think outside of your stupid pride in False American freedom. 2-your “informed decisions” are obviously biased because you only feed your mind with biased propaganda. Anything that goes against what you know of the US doesn’t seem to make sense to you

5

Anonymous OP 15h

I’d argue that’s just as true as you with China and socialism tho

1

Anonymous OP 15h

I mean…come on…🫤

1

Anonymous OP 15h

I don’t think it’s worth engaging with 3 👎 because it’s clear they’re either trolling, slow, or both Every US President, Left or Right recognizes the importance of US-China relations and has made visits to China. The fact that 3 is either so scared or disinterested in traveling to China shows they don’t have a genuine interest in understanding the country and regional tensions (e.g., Taiwan).

4

Anonymous #3 15h

That’s nationalism lol. You have blind faith in the nation because you think it represents its ideas, when it does not

1

Anonymous #3 15h

You won’t catch me defending Stalin personally, the core point which should be obvious is that we in the West have no moral high ground at all, bad people and events can occur in any system, outright dismissals of socialism are almost always objectively and maliciously oversimplified, Western interference has made the truth extremely murky, and there is clear evidence of genuine benefits

10

Anonymous OP 15h

“Nobody gets greedy” is also a massive overstatement, it would decrease in frequency when it’s less naturally encouraged but it will always be present in any system

6

Anonymous OP 15h

Hey you can tell me it's false all you want, but every other country I ever went to told me that I was taught correctly, and I couldn't carry my pistol outside of the states or speak out in every way I might want against the government. Hell a lot of the Caribbean nations won't even let you wear camouflage 😂

-2

Anonymous #3 15h

Haha yeahhhhhh 100% troll lmao 🤣

2

Anonymous #2 15h

No I know China isn’t perfect at all, and they have a lot of flaws just like any other government, but I do acknowledge that is one of the few countries where the wellbeing of the average person is put as a priority. And China here was only any example for communist countries doing well.

5

Anonymous #3 15h

A) Not everyone in the U.S. can freely speak against or demonstrate against the U.S. You’re able to out of your own privilege and the specifics of your message. B) Most people don’t see the most valuable freedom a human can own as being able to go everywhere with a firearm.

1

Anonymous #2 15h

What's more important than being able to defend yourself? Can't even eat food, drink water, or enjoy the benefits of a shelter if I am not alive

0

Anonymous #3 15h

There are many routes to the same path Plus if you feel as if you need a firearm at all times, I’d suggest therapy as that’s an unhealthy level of anxiety/paranoia to be living with America isn’t that unsafe, and you’re actually more likely to be killed in a crime-related incident if you carry a gun versus if you don’t.

1

Anonymous #2 15h

I got heated because #3 made statements so dumb that I was forced to “defend” China. I am a socialist tho. And socialism isn’t a belief, it’s a science, just like communism.

4

Anonymous #1 15h

#1 I’m genuinely curious to hear a summary of your position because you’ve kind of made arguments in both directions but seem fairly reasonable

1

Anonymous #2 15h

It's not really out of an anxious or paranoid thing, more so "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it"

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Only in America will someone who has never seen war, worry about dying to a gun, before they worry about basic necessities.

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Plus I'm in bear country so it behooves one to carry even if they're in a super safe area or whatever

1

Anonymous #3 15h

yeah, although it makes logical sense, it acc puts you in much greater danger

1

Anonymous #2 15h

statisticslly

1

Anonymous OP 15h

Not gonna lie if I were expecting to be attacked by someone with a gun I'd be carrying a mossberg shockwave not a glock 17

1

Anonymous #3 15h

This is diff tho, esp if it’s rural

1

Anonymous #2 15h

Having bear spray and a gun puts you at a much higher statistical advantage than having either on its own

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Obviously use the bear spray first but that really shouldn't be your last resort, especially where I'm at because of the prevalence of grizzlies

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Yeah if you’re using it against animals / for hunting it’s diff, but a human attacker is more likely to use your own gun against you than you are to fend him off successfully

1

Anonymous #2 15h

Well yeah for human attackers you're supposed to use pocket sand and kick them in the nuts first

1

Anonymous #3 15h

We’re led to believe that dictatorship of the proletariat (which is found in Marxist-Leninist led socialist states) is the same kind of dictatorship as something in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, or even something like in Saudi Arabia. They’re not the same at all.

6

Anonymous #7 15h

I really don't care how similar or dissimilar they are, both want to use state power to kill people and therefore are bad.

0

Anonymous #3 15h

And liberal “democracies” don’t?

0

Anonymous #2 15h

Yeah what I mean by that is, since greed isn’t rewarded, nobody will see the benefit in being greedy, or act on greed in a capitalistic way. They might get greedy, but they will not try to take from others just to satisfy themselves, but instead will work harder to satisfy their wants.

1

Anonymous #7 15h

A democracy can live with change, a dictatorship cannot survive it.

1

Anonymous OP 15h

I would still be greedy even if there wasn't any incentive

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Can it though? If the people elect an “authoritarian” government that then removes democratic institutions, then that “democracy” effectively dies.

2

Anonymous #7 15h

If that were true than Germany wouldn't exist

0

Anonymous #7 15h

Plus we are asking if it can change, which it can. It can also fail to change, but this still gives us better odds than something that cannot change in the first place.

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Except Germany’s institutions are being worn down now and also, they constantly arrest people for exercising free speech (such as those who criticize Israel). That is not democratic whatsoever.

1

Anonymous #7 15h

Yes, it's a bit of a Keynesian thing. Everybody takes little concessions and things that they want/need from the other side, even if ideologically they should oppose it.

1

Anonymous #7 15h

Still, in the same way that China is "communist" despite having free markets, Germany is a "liberal democracy" despite its controls on free speech.

4

Anonymous #3 15h

Yeah but you wouldn’t be able to benefit from it

1

Anonymous OP 15h

There's just no possible way you could ever make that happen

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Even if there weren't money or class structures or anything I would just steal shit from the government and keep it or use it

1

Anonymous #3 14h

Except when Germany allows a party that calls for violent mass deportations of people based on ethnicity, religion, and national origin, it becomes much less of an issue of freedom of speech and more of the rise of fascism. This shows how weak “democracy” in Germany is but it has always been this way, starting back from its existence as West Germany.

1

Anonymous #3 14h

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, like in China or Cuba. Free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion are all allowed but are restricted to protect all people (not just who the government agrees with).

4

Anonymous #3 14h

We could. If you want to know how, just read the book called The State and Revolution by Lenin, and Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx

1

Anonymous #7 14h

Note that the overwhelming majority of the people voting for AfD are in the post Soviet region

1

Anonymous #3 14h

Well you would be immediately punished for stealing. Unless you decided to steal out of necessity, then you would get help and rehabilitated.

1

Anonymous #3 14h

Now this could be for a number of reasons, but I'll list a few that I suspect played a major role. 1) The people there are used to a strongman leader, or "dictatorship of the proletariat" as you prefer, and naturally gravitate towards the politics they are familiar with. 2) These areas are some of the poorer regions, and they would like to externalize their economic issues to stuff like immigration and lacking national identity

1

Anonymous #3 14h

Yes, because it is a poorer region due to the capitalist government’s failure to help them assimilate after they were illegally annexed by West Germany in 1990. This is a common trend of disenfranchised people in poorer regions blaming economic distress on immigrants/refugees as opposed to their corrupt government. This is literally how the Tea Party and then the MAGA movement came into existence.

1

Anonymous #3 14h

And the dictatorship of the proletariat is exclusively a Marxist-Leninist concept. They lost that in 1990 and with it, they lost their jobs, many of their homes, social security, pensions, etc.

1

Anonymous #7 14h

They would have lost those things anyways, Russia is no longer a socialist union.

1

Anonymous #3 14h

It is, though Russia did bring back the right to housing. However, focusing exclusively on socialist states, China, Vietnam, and Cuba all preserved those things after the Cold War ended long after East Germany or the Soviet Union collapsed. They never introduced liberal democracies but they kept these policies to help their citizens.

1

Anonymous #7 14h

So since they kept those policies, would you call them resistant to change?

1

Anonymous #3 14h

Not at all, especially when it comes to social issues for example! In 2019, Cuba updated its constitution (after a national referendum) that recognized small businesses, formally prohibited discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, and sexual orientation. This also, helped push for the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2022, which is something that many liberal democratic countries still haven’t legalized yet.

1

Anonymous #3 14h

Those policies that I mentioned earlier however, were preserved because they serve a beneficial purpose to helping the average civilian. I mean, would you consider a state removing welfare programs in the spirit of change progressive?

1

Anonymous #7 14h

The US did the whole civil rights thing in the 60s and same sex marriage a while back but as for the second part I think it depends on your viewpoint

1

Anonymous #7 14h

I don't really think that the US' welfare programs are great or work as they should so removing them would probably be progress towards a goal of bettering them, if we were to then replace them

1

Anonymous #3 14h

But your point was that Marxist-Leninist states are resistant to change, not liberal democracies. I provided an example of one accepting a significant social change to the point of signing it into law. And if you want to get into the United States (which is considered a “democratic” country) specifically, we could talk about the current erosion of both of those things now.

1

Anonymous #3 14h

And for a countries where they do work, like the ones I mentioned?

1

Anonymous #7 14h

Yes, I think taking 6 extra decades to have their civil rights movement is definitely an example of being resistant to change

0

Anonymous #3 14h

Except allowing multiple changes and then legalizing them disproves that theory. Meanwhile, the US is eroding both of those things. Or how about the “democratic” countries that never allowed them at all, like Japan? Yet somehow they legalized marriage to fictional characters… Are they not resistant to change?

1

Anonymous #7 13h

The US already changed their mind and then changed it back in the time it took Cuba to change it once. Less resistant to change.

0

Anonymous #7 13h

Allowing fictional characters to marry people in real life, definitely also an example of change.

0

Change is not directional

0

Anonymous #3 13h

The United States rolling back those protections is not progressive or allowing change. That’s regression and quite literally resisting change for the sake of preserving “American society”.

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Then Cuba allowing it and legalizing it is an example of change, whether you admit it or not.

1

Anonymous #7 13h

One could say they are changing their stance from progressivism to nationalism

0

Anonymous #7 13h

Yet it would still be changed

0

Anonymous #3 13h

You can’t say a country is in favor of or against change simply based on how long it took but then excuse another country for now allowing that change that all. That’s being a hypocrite.

1

Anonymous #7 13h

That'd be true if the 60s were some localized civil rights movement in the USA, but it was completely global, grassroots and widespread.

0

Anonymous #7 13h

Seems like Cuba just missed it because they were/are resistant to change

0

Anonymous #3 13h

And the US government only allowed Civil Rights because they were forced to in the 60s. If they were actually open to it, they wouldn’t have have tried to assassinate MLK (and whitewash his legacy after he was murdered), actually assassinate Huey Newton, Operate COINTELPRO, commit the MOVE bombing, introduce crack into black neighborhoods, incarcerate black and brown people disproportionately, etc. The only reason they accepted it at all is because they were under international pressure

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Cuba made those reforms under no pressure whatsoever and did nothing to undermine those pushing for it.

1

Anonymous OP 13h

You're not gonna catch every guy stealing scrap metal from old housing complexes

1

Anonymous #7 13h

Well admittedly the USA was becoming a bit more socialist and authoritarian during the 40s-60s so that makes complete sense why they were resistant to that change

0

Anonymous #3 13h

Define socialism

3

Anonymous #3 13h

Now this is just historical revisionism my guy. You’re ignoring a massive elephant in the room: McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare. The US was always authoritarian and it still is now.

1

Anonymous #2 13h

When the government and big industries start to have gay sex and butt fuck each other

0

Anonymous #7 13h

I'm not really, FDR's social programs were definitely a step towards socialism despite the government's outward appearance of being incredibly anti communist

0

Anonymous #3 13h

that is not what socialism is, that’s just state control of industry

5

Anonymous #3 13h

You mean to tell me, that the whole time you’ve been making your argument, you’ve been misinformed about what these specific concepts are?

6

Anonymous #7 13h

of course, it’s America

9

Anonymous #8 11h

Yup, the change would be gradual but it’s definitely possible. We wouldn’t become communist overnight. It would be more like adapting communism one step at a time, and in our case it would start with heavily taxing the rich, then making things like healthcare, housing, food and water, public transport, easily accessible for everyone and most of these would become free as we go on. If the US was to start working towards communism, it would be kind of like what mamdani is doing now but better.

1