I can forgive imperial core boomers for this level of “brainwashing,” but most of the rabidly anti-“tankie” Lemmitors aren’t that old.

I would respond here, but anything meaningful would be removed.

Nothing you could be hinting at would actually be meaningful anyways or something not debunked a million times. Go ahead. holodomor, purges, North Korea, CCP / Uyghur / Social Credit / Tiananmen Square, Pol Pot, … Which is it? Cmon it’s okay!

It's okay to be honest and admit you have nothing meaningful to contribute. No need to be condescending.

Can you define the word ‘communism’?

"I have a totally compelling and reality-based argument that you definitely haven't heard two thousand times before, but it goes to a different school."

Pol Pot? the guy who was widely condemed by both China and the Soviet Union as a fascist masquerading as a comunist and completely ruined his country? That's a new level for yall

do you understand what the word 'or' means? The commentor was clearly just listing common talking points anti-communists use. You are purposefully misconstruing their words because you can't engage in substantive conversation about an issue that your total amassed education on probably amounts to the literal meme above.

My chud brother accused me of being indoctrinated before, and I'm like, my brother in christ actuality, we were raised by the same conservative parents, in the same conservative area, in many of the same conservative schools. I know what you believe backwards and forwards. You can't tell the difference between my beliefs and Joe Biden's. One of us thinks critically about our own beliefs and tries to understand other perspectives, and it sure as hell ain't you.

It's just really funny on some level when they're so set on reading the same talking points from their script and try to go off about privileged out-of-touch coastal elites who only believe things because they're never exposed to outside ideas, with someone they literally grew up with.

My argument would totally destroy yours but you'd just refuse to engage so I won't bother

So you admit he wasn't a communist!!! Checkmate!!!

Europeans too. But we're basically Americans also, so.

a more pathetic and spineless version of americans. Especially germans.

They’re indoctrinated into calling us indoctrinated or saying we live in a bubble, and the irony is lost on them.

I'm gonna just drop the truth nuke here so that I can get closer to my "banned from .ml award" quicker:

the media and the wast majority in general just don't know the difference between stalinism, communism in general, anarcho-communism and anything else that mentions "communism"/"communistic". They see bad examples set by, ahem, China and such to then apply it to basically the entire left. EDIT: forgot to mention socialism

That's not quite correct. The west refers to socialist states run by Marxist-Leninist or similar parties as "communist," because those are the most geopolitically relevant representations of communism historically and presently. "Stalinism" isn't a thing, the ideology is called Marxism-Leninism and Stalin's contributions are minor compared to Marx and Lenin. The reason anarcho-communism isn't mentioned is because it doesn't exist anywhere that would require the news to report on it.

Westerners see rising socialist success stories like China, and the news apparatus does its best to either discredit China or pin all of its successes purely on the marketized sector, rather than the cohesive socialist system that marketizes underdeveloped industry and socially owns the commanding heights of the economy. Their goal isn't to discredit the left by associating them with China, their goal is to dissuade the left from following its example.

Well I mean, at the moment at least it seems that European protests against the current regimes are burning down city halls while the Americans are busy dancing with cop-approved parameters and building human sculptures that say "vote". But then again, until either of these areas goes through a communist revolution I'll call neither less pathetic or spineless population than the other.

Why comment at all, then?

Nobody is supporting Pol Pot here, the point is that anti-communists love using him against communists.

Okay, so you think the capitalist owned media would like anarcho-communism if they only knew the difference? Or that they'd like general communism better than "stalinism" (a fictional anti-communist propaganda term, not something that has ever existed in the real world).

Well, go on then, just try telling everyone about how great (anarcho)-communism is. But get in touch with some comrades first and let them know, so they can come to literally bail you out when state repression inevitably hits you hard.

We're about as American as we are African like the South African colonial settlers who tried to appropriate the term African to refer to themselves but failed.

But isn't China state-captialism or party-state capitalism? They make immense profits but those aren't distributed to the population, state enterprises or non-state firms have them. I don't see how that is socialism....

CPC say themselves that they are in the 'primary stage of socialism' so they haven't reached that. And that stage to me doesn't look like socialism at all...

Socialism is a transitional mode of production and distribution between capitalism and communism, characterized by social ownership as the principal aspect, ie rising and dominant, aspect of the economy and the working class as in control of the state. Both apply to China right now. The path of socialist construction in China utilizes a Marxist understanding of economics that sees the material basis of markets as decentralized and underdeveloped production, and the material basis of planned economy as highly developed and centralized production.

China maintains social ownership of the commanding heights of the economy which have already reached monopoly scale, and employs controlled marketization to accelerate the development of underdeveloped industry to create the basis for social ownership through development. The CPC stands at the top, a working class party with a strong basis in Marxism-Leninism with Xi Jinping Thought, and uses this dominance of the state to restrict the capitalists from forming a politically unified and coherent class that could undermine this socialist construction and derail it.

Here's a diagram of that "stages of socialism" part you mentioned:

They are currently developing towards the intermediate stage, with plans to reach it by 2049. That means they are already socialist, just developing towards higher stages of socialism.

But isn’t China state-captialism or party-state capitalism?

https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#is-china-state-capitalist

CCP

It's the Communist Party of China (CPC).

Okay, so you think the capitalist owned media would like anarcho-communism if they only knew the difference?

No? The writers may or may not know the difference, the people setting policies don't. If you look around, you may find media coverage of lots of anarchist-adjacent events, most in an excessive "allegedly" "according to them" NPOV style that avoids explicitly saying anything positive, regardless if the event itself portrays them as "bad" or "good". Although I am sure someone may say something positive if there's a money incentive. In fact, I vaguely recall reading an article somewhere about the mostly-anarchist "resistance committee" in Ukraine's army, it was mostly good things, probably since the topic of Ukraine became uncontroversial enough that even the investors would want it to be positive (I support Ukraine in the situation and am myself there btw).

"stalinism" (a fictional anti-communist propaganda term, not something that has ever existed in the real world)

Lots of people are tired of explaining this to .mls, but here's the third sentence into the English Wikipedia article "Marxism-Leninism":

It was developed in the Soviet Union by Joseph Stalin

Here's a quote from RationalWiki:

Marxism-Leninism is the communist ideology created by Joseph Stalin, according to his own interpretation of Marxism and Leninism. Marxism-Leninism advocates for a centrally planned economy with a one-party socialist state and brutal repression of anything deemed "bourgeois" or "counter-revolutionary", which, for virtually all Marxist-Leninist leaders, includes anyone or anything they don't like.

Meanwhile, the first sentence into the English Wikipedia article "Stalinism":

Stalinism (Russian: сталинизм) is the totalitarian[1][2][3] means of governing and Marxist–Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Union (USSR) from 1927 to 1953 by General Secretary of The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin and in Soviet satellite states between 1944 and 1953.

So, in dumbed down terms, one is what is proposed (in doublespeak) and the other is the de-facto result. You may consider them the same, you may consider one "other than what is usually portrayed" or whatever, but saying it doesn't exist by definition makes no sense.

{...} just try telling everyone about how great (anarcho)-communism is. But get in touch with some comrades first and let them know, so they can come to literally bail you out when state repression inevitably hits you hard.

Well, didn't I already mention where I am from and organizations like the Resistance Committee? Short story is that my government is siding with the lib-left for the time being (and wise versa). And my opsec is unbelievably, irreversibly fucked, which is a separate, personal issue; not currently relevant. Also, there's another example of such co-existence that goes directly against your argument, which is Freetown Christiania making tourist money for Denmark.

I'd say we as Europeans live in a culture that is Usianized to the extent of being unrecognizable from the original. Our leaders do what the Usians tell them to do, our institutions serve Usian interests, our militaries use Usian weapons. Our populations watch Usian movies and serials, read Usian books, follow Usian zeitgeists. We use Usian social media platforms, where Usian algorithms serve us Usian propaganda. We learn to speak American English in school, where they teach us the history of the world that is approved by Usians.

Mentioning his name means we support him? Wtf? OK, everyone make sure we never mention Adolf Hitler.

Wait, shit, I said his name right there! Fuck!

I guess you support He-who-shall-not-be-named, since you said his name after all. What a goofy comment lmao.

Even if so, it's pointless if the average worker can't see the effect. It's malicious compliance.

Everyone Marxist-Leninist knows Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin. The point being made that "Stalinism does not exist" is that Stalin's contributions to Marxism-Leninism are minor compared to the work of Marx and Lenin. Referring to the real ideology of Marxism-Leninism as "Stalinism" is meant to make the former seem scary by associating it with the popular bourgeois mythos surrounding the figure of Stalin himself, what Losurdo calls his "black legend."

Let's break down Rationalwiki's explanation:

Marxism-Leninism is the communist ideology created by Joseph Stalin, according to his own interpretation of Marxism and Leninism.

This is correct. The implication here is that Stalin may have doctored Marxism and/or Leninism if we are being uncharitable or may have misinterpreted if we are being charitable, but the basic fact is that Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Marxism and Leninism as created by Stalin, with little input from himself in the matter comparatively.

Marxism-Leninism advocates for a centrally planned economy

This is basic Marxism, not an invention of Stalin.

with a one-party socialist state

This is basic Leninism, not an invention of Stalin.

and brutal repression of anything deemed “bourgeois” or “counter-revolutionary”,

This is basic Marxism and basic Leninism, doctored in scary words. From the time of Marx it was understood that the proletariat must use its own dictatorship against the bourgeoisie and their collaborators to cement the gains of socialism and eradicate class society, as is their historical role. This is not an invention of Stalin.

which, for virtually all Marxist-Leninist leaders, includes anyone or anything they don’t like.

This is nonsense, and notably not backed up at all by example but instead relies on the gut reaction of anti-communism in the reader to fill in the blanks with their own imagination. It's intellectual dishonesty, and relies on that same black legend from before.

Wikipedia at least tries to pretend "Stalinism" refers to the actual policies of Stalin during his era of leadership, which I can at least accept, but it also similarly doctors it up in scary words like "totalitarian," without identifying anything about that.

The average workers are seeing the effect of socialism. Within living memory, workers have gone from foot binding and mass famine on a regular basis to a modernized socialist society. Real wages dramatically improve year over year:

Extreme poverty and homelessness have been eradicated. Home ownership is among the highest in the world, and every day technology is made to benefit the people over corporate profits.

I think you have a caricature of China that exists in your head, but it isn't the China that exists in reality. Had China adhered to your moralist stance on socialism, that private property is a sin, then the average worker would not have the same levels of dramatic improvements year over year. This is dogmatism, not Marxism.

Hahahah wow ok

propagandized against communism? 100%
vassals of the US? same.
But "we're basically Americans" is an insult I won't take.

Wikipedia {...} also similarly doctors it up in scary words like “totalitarian,” without identifying anything about that.

Okay... While I don't always agree with Wikipedia ('s policies), go ahead, try editing that out and seeing what the community says about that.

truth nuke

My banned from .ml award

Ew

They'll say all the same things we hear from the most clueless capitalist subjects, day in, day out. They will firehose their recieved propagands into the gap.

How on earth is that connected to the eradication of extreme poverty in China?

Are you trying to vaguely suggest this is language originated in right wing communities which is your reason for disgust? If so, that would imply you are mad for me using it to promote left(er) wing ideas to make it (further) unusable as dogwhistle.

Since "Totalitarianism" is a word with deeply emotional baggage, let's see how Wikipedia defines it, and measure it up against Marxism-Leninism and "Stalinism."

Totalitarianism is a political system and a form of government that completely controls the public sphere and the private sphere of society. It is characterized by its prohibition of opposing political parties and its extreme suppression of opposition to the state. In the field of political science, totalitarianism is the extreme form of authoritarianism, where in all political power is held by a dictator. This figure controls the national politics and peoples of the nation with continual propaganda campaigns that are broadcast by state-controlled and state-aligned private mass communications media.[4]

In short, any socialist system that has a unitary form of government, no matter how democratic, is "totalitarian." The additional baggage of propaganda and the use of the word "dictator" are also there to beef this up in scary terms, but at face value any socialist system with a unitary form of government would be totalitarian by this. We will investigate the term dictator later, for now let's continue:

Two versions of the World War II U.S. propaganda poster "Your Lot in a Totalitarian State" depicting a process of compulsory sham election which took place in totalitarian states, the flags of which – Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy[a] and the Soviet Union – are presented below. In the version on the right, produced after Operation Barbarossa, the flag of the Soviet Union (Allied member) is replaced with that of the Empire of Japan[b] (Axis member), which is not always regarded as totalitarian by Western scholars.[1] In regards to the USSR, the label has also received some criticism.[2][3]

Interesting! Wikipedia even acknowledges that labeling the USSR as "totalitarian" is criticized! Let's continue a bit further, for the final paragraphs:

A totalitarian government uses ideology to control most aspects of human life, such as the political economy of the country, the system of education, the arts and sciences, and the private morality of its citizens.[5] In the exercise of power, the difference between a totalitarian government and an authoritarian government is one of degree. Whereas totalitarianism features a charismatic dictator and a fixed worldview, authoritarianism only features a dictator who holds power for the sake of holding power. The authoritarian dictator is supported, either jointly or individually, by a military junta and by the socio-economic elites who are the ruling class of the country.[6]

So, a socialist society with a unified ideology like Marxism-Leninism, and the working class as the rulers of society, is "totalitarian." It's doctored with scary language, but easily applies to any socialist state with a cohesive worldview. Continuing:

The word totalitarian was first used in the early 1920s to describe the Italian Fascist government.[7][8] The term totalitarianism gained wider usage in politics of the interwar period; in the early years of the Cold War, it arose from comparison of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin to Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler as a theoretical concept of Western political science. The term achieved hegemony in explaining the nature of Fascist and Communist states, and later entered the Western historiography of Communism, the Soviet Union and the Russian Revolution; in the 21st century, it became applied to Islamist movements and their governments. The concept of totalitarianism has been challenged and criticized by some historians of Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR. While the two states are defined as exemplary cases of totalitarianism, these historians argue that the main characteristics of the concept – total control over society, total mobilization of the masses, and a monolithic centralized character of the government – were never achieved by the dictatorships called totalitarian. To support this claim, the historians argue that the political structures of these states were disorganized and chaotic, and that despite the supposed external similarities between Nazism and Stalinism, their internal logic and structure were substantially different. The applicability of the concept to Islamism has also been criticized.[7][9][10]

Now we get to the juice! The word "Totalitarianism" arose to equate the Nazis and the Communists as "twin evils" with "twin devils!" The word itself arose to discredit communism during the cold war! The truth is that the communists uplifted the working class and oppressed the bourgeoisie, while the Nazis uplifted the capitalist class and oppressed the working classes. Superficial similarities are used to equate the entire systems with foundational opposition! This is a part of Double Genocide Theory, a form of Holocaust trivialization. Onto how Wikipedia identifies dictators, to complete this foray:

A dictator is a political leader who possesses absolute power. A dictatorship is defined as a state ruled by a dictator.[1][2] The word originated as the title of a Roman dictator elected by the Roman Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency.[2] Like the terms "tyrant" and "autocrat", dictator came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive rule.[3] In modern usage, the term dictator is generally used to describe a leader who holds or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power.

Considering that Wikipedia considers unitary socialist governments, no matter how democratic, to be "totalitarian," they therefore use this to determine the leaders must be "dictators," no matter the democratic process of selection. Moving on:

20th-century leaders typically described as dictators (from left to right and top to bottom): Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union; Adolf Hitler of Germany; Augusto Pinochet of Chile; Mao Zedong of China; Benito Mussolini of Italy; and Kim Il Sung of North Korea

If it wasn't obvious before, we again return to the "twin evils, twin devils" comparisons meant to directly equate fascism with communism! It cannot be more clear, this is an attempt to equate any existing socialism with fascism. Continuing:

Dictatorships are often characterised by some of the following: suspension of elections and civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents; not abiding by the procedures of the rule of law; and the existence of a cult of personality centered on the leader. Dictatorships are often one-party or dominant-party states.[4][5] A wide variety of leaders throughout history have been described as dictators.[6]

More baggage and fearmongering onto the word. Given the careful, liberal construction of definitions, it's clear that the only purpose on the Wikipedia entry for "Stalinism" is to contribute to the blanket equating of communism with fascism as twin evils, and liberalism as synonymous with democracy, even though socialist societies with communist governments have been more democratic than liberal democracies, and liberal democracies have far more in common with fascism than fascism with communism.

oh no!

You can read BBC talking about it here, and see the actual process in what does it mean to eradicate absolute poverty? Alleging "survivorship bias" in response to demonstrable poverty eradication without doing any legwork to support your assertion is just naked "China bad."

at least some still have a fighting spirit.
and taste

I just want you to act normal. Actually talk to people like they're people and not props for your own self-aggrandizement. Seek to understand instead of making a big performance out of pre-emptively climbing up on the cross.

well yeah, it seems the usians prefer to dance and vote. i'd rather celebrate local cultures on their own terms, not under US hegemony.

I gotta hand you guys that, it does seem like there's a limit to how much bullshit you'll tolerate. We have yet to find that limit in the states.

Then we need to kick these bootlicker EU 'leaders' or nato cucks like Rutte out with the US invaders.