• randint@lemm.ee
      3·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, the Chinese government is totally very democratic and is receptive to the criticism of its citizens! They never censor words and topics they don’t like on their social media platforms!

    • BigNote@lemm.ee
      2·
      2 years ago

      You know, that actually makes sense. 14-year-olds. It would explain a lot about hexbears.

    • Someonelol@lemmy.ml
      21·
      2 years ago

      Just got banned from Hexbear for saying something negative about China and the US at the same time. They have no tolerance of any discussion that challenges their preconceptions.

  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
    3·
    2 years ago

    I agree. Fascist countries like Denmark, Germany and Canada often get called “socialist” and they have been disastrous for the reputation of socialism.

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    3·
    2 years ago

    us-foreign-policy

    Westerners deciding who’s doing real socialism or not. Westerners expressing their most vile sentiment for foreign countries rather than their own imperialism. Westerners praising the words of their own imperialist intelligence agencies. Westerners unironically praising their own nations for civil liberties like the freedom of fascists to assemble, freedom of racists to express themselves, freedom of parents to own their children, and freedom of school districts to continue racial segregation. Westerners praising imperialist nations like Norway as socialist while using bold language like fascism to describe places under that same exact threat of imperialism, like Cuba and Vietnam.

    Westerners claiming foreign governments are merely pretending to be socialist, while claiming unorganized misinformed chauvinistic westerners are the true heirs to socialism, despite all they do is post online and complain about foreign nations.

    Westerners praising anarchist movements from 100 years ago despite having no common cause with those movements, no connection to the circumstances within them, and probably no actual admiration of them. Westerners praising a bastardized, sectarian, perverse form of anarchism rather than attempting unity with organizations in their areas. Westerners refusing to speak with actual anarchists in their area, who by and large don’t give a shit and just want to hand out food or help at shelters. If Buenaventura Durruti were alive today he’d be regarded with scorn by western chauvinists.

    Westerners continuing to bring up Trotsky of all people, who wasn’t relevant to world affairs for the last 15 years of his life and certainly not the past 80 years. Westerners not reading a single word of Trotsky’s work, westerners focusing entirely on Trotsky’s feud with Stalin, westerners not knowing that Trotsky was a literal military commander. Westerners calling themselves Trotskyists in 2023 for some reason. Westerners deciding they have a feud with Joseph Stalin, a man who died in 1953.

    Westerners attempting to praise their own socialist leadership, who happen to be a scattered group of imperialist-aligned social democrats, Twitch streamers, and actual antisemitic grifters such as in the case of Caleb Maupin.

        • PatFusty@lemm.ee
          1·
          2 years ago

          I dont want to be a victim of hexbear road rage thanks. You guys just vomit out material in hopes that you can string it together to form a cogent argument. Then you come back smug as ever asking why i didnt respond to the 10k talking points as if I was a human encyclopedia.

          • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            How would I distinguish you, based only on your reply, from someone who took one look at two whole paragraphs and decided you weren’t going to read that but had to keep arguing no matter what and spewed out some sour grape nonsense?

              • raven [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                0·
                2 years ago

                How should we frame our arguments in response to a meme that paints every single prominent socialist and socialist country as fascist without addressing each one?
                Really the burden of proof should be on the one making the claim, shouldn’t it?

                • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  People confuse facism and authoritarianism all the time, and people respond to this as if they’ve never figured this out.

                  So instead of anything productive these threads churn out:

                  Omg communist countries are fascist!

                  actually no socialist!

                  lol oppression

                  Vs

                  hey why do so many socialist states end up being super authoritarian?

                  hey yeah thats a huge problem, but lets ignore it because west bad

          • BigNote@lemm.ee
            0·
            2 years ago

            Yes, because engaging with hexbears is a waste of time. They are not here in good faith. Either that or they don’t know any better, which in practice amounts to the same thing.

              • BigNote@lemm.ee
                0·
                2 years ago

                That’s a fair question and in all honesty the answer is no, because based on what I can easily see and understand of hexbears, they aren’t intellectually serious people and to the contrary are more akin to a kind of 4-chan trolling community than anything worth actual intellectual engagement.

                I could be wrong, but so far I have yet to see any evidence as such.

        • BigNote@lemm.ee
          0·
          2 years ago

          Said no one. Except you. You either know what a Gish gallop is, or you don’t. A long comment is not necessarily a Gish gallop. In this case the charge is entirely accurate.

            • BigNote@lemm.ee
              0·
              2 years ago

              As if it’s somehow impossible to make a long comment in support of a single argument? As if Gish galloping comments don’t actually exist? Do I follow your logic properly? What part about this do I not understand?

                • BigNote@lemm.ee
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  What argument? 20+ arguments were made. Which one am I meant to address?

                  If I focus on one you’ll jump on me for not addressing the 19 others, which is why it’s a bullshit tactic.

      • BigNote@lemm.ee
        01·
        2 years ago

        That’s precisely the point. These guys have a toolbox of fallacious arguments and techniques that they regularly trot out. The Gish gallop is one of them. Another, that you see being put to wide use in this thread, is redefining words and terms to fit their narrative.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    41·
    2 years ago

    Very interesting how all those “pretend socialists” only exist in the third world, and all the “real socialists” existin the west. Yet all the successful revolutions have been done in the third world by “pretend socialists”, and the so called “real socialists” in the west have accomplished nothing. Their biggest success of the “real socialists” in the west being capitalist welfare states or social democracies that rely on old school imperial relationships to fund their welfare in a select few areas.

    No Eurocentrism present to this line of thought here at all…

    What do you think of Nelson Mandela OP? He was a very good leader, right? You know that he considered Cuba an ally and supported their revolution as Cuba sent troops to fight against the apartheid government in the border wars, took inspiration from Mao and called the Chinese revolution a miracle, thanked the Soviets for giving unending support in the fight against apartheid while receiving the a Lenin Peace Prize? So is Nelson Mandela now a fascist according to your meme?

  • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    You have a lifetime of anti communist propaganda to overcome. You’re close, take the last step and realize you’ve been lied to about AES countries. No place is a utopia, but those countries are lights in the dark.

    • Plibbert@lemmy.ml
      0·
      2 years ago

      I’m confused, are you saying he’s using it wrong?

      Here’s a copy paste from Webster.

      often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

      Replace the word race with party and you’ve got an incomplete yes, but not necessarily inaccurate description of Stalins USSR.

      Seriously not trying to just be a troll or shill here, so if you feel I’m wrong please let me know how and why. I am legitimately, in good faith, curious about the perspectives of some communist here. It is an ideology I am somewhat interested in.

      • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Personally I like the definition that the historian Robert O. Paxton uses. Now, he’s a liberal, but he does have good insight into fascism and he doesn’t fall into that trap of deciding that communists and fascists must be the same thing. His definition isn’t materialist, but it’s a good start.

        To paraphrase, his definition is “a suppression of the left among popular sentiment.” By left he means things like socialists, labor organizations, communists, etc. Fascism is a situation where a country has found its theater of democracy has failed and the capitalists need anything at all to keep themselves in power, even if it means cannibalizing another sector of capitalists. The fascists are the ideological contingent of this, who put forward a policy of class collaboration between working class and capitalist, instead of what socialists propose, which is working class dominance in the economy. Fascists exalt nationality or race because that extends through class sentiments. It brushes aside concerns like internal economic contradictions. I once had a comrade say something like “Fascism is capitalists hitting the emergency button until their hand starts bleeding.”

        Communists using a vanguard party is to defend their own interests against capitalists or outside invaders. The praise of the CPSU in Stalin’s era was precisely because it acted as a development and protection tool for the working class. It did its job and people were wary of any return to the previous Tsarist or liberal governments. Women began going to school, women were given the vote for the first time. Pogroms ceased. In less than one lifetime of the CPSU administrating the country, people went from poor farmers to living in apartments with plumbing, heating, and clean medical care. That’s why there was such praise of the party, because they actually did things people liked, and they didn’t want anything to threaten them.

        Also, what does it matter if there’s one party or two? The working class have a singular, uniting interest to overthrow capitalism. Why are multiple parties needed? Anything the working class needs to negotiate for can be handled within a socialist, democratic structure, not two or three competing structures against one another. Take a look at Cuba, which has one party, but doesn’t use their party to endorse candidates. Everyone’s officially an independent in the National Assembly.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              0·
              2 years ago

              If i remember his book correctly, at start he explicitly denies marxist definition of fascism, and then in course of the book his research lead straight to it being correct on at least two separate occasions, them makes full stop and end the topic when he realise what would he have to write next.

              I don’t know if thats merely ritually exorcising communism in order to have his book accepted by liberal academia (like in case of Geza Alfoldy for example) or he really is this intellectually dishonest, because he clearly did realised. Anyway it was funny as hell and the book isn’t even bad.

              • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                0·
                2 years ago

                Possibly because of the way he’s found his career. Paxton is very popular in France and was very instrumental in introducing liberal historiography into French WW2 history. For him to throw a bone to Marxists would be undermining how he earned a name for himself in the first place.

                • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                  01·
                  2 years ago

                  Yeah i see that in polish social sciences too, especially by older authors, it’s hard here to keep position in the academia without paying at least lip service to anticommunist witchhunt. Unfortunately even those people are already dead and the new ones are not even shy about being opportunists, most books publish nowadays are almost worthless since it’s either anticommunist propaganda, pophistory or bland compilations from older ones.

            • Dr_Gabriel_Aby [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
              0·
              2 years ago

              I do think it was an attempt. They just didn’t even know that a coup attempt involved more than walking in the door and demanding Trump be president. The next one in America will involve mass killing, and it will be from a similar demographic.

              • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                0·
                2 years ago

                Yeah we’re still in a position where American fascism doesn’t even recognize itself in the mirror. It doesn’t realize it’s a movement that needs coherent aims. It’s still stuck in the American paradigm of politics as consumerism. A comrade the other day here said the explicit kind of American fascism is having a hard time getting off the ground because they refuse to adopt socialist rhetoric, like European fascist movements in the past.

                • Dr_Gabriel_Aby [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  1·
                  2 years ago

                  Yea that’s well said, also American fascists luckily have no history to look back to that’s before the US state formation. So instead of wanting a new system, they just want their guy to play President as they sit on the couch.

        • Plibbert@lemmy.ml
          0·
          2 years ago

          This was an enlightening comment and I appreciate it. I may not agree with all of it but it definitely shows there are some perspectives I haven’t considered. A parliamentary or council type system could definitely provide enough representation of different working class communities within a single party. I wonder if they had term limits, or if their representatives would fall into the same hole as the US Congress.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            1·
            2 years ago

            The common socialist position is that term limits are anti-democratic not just because they keep people from voting for who they want to but, more significantly, it tilts the scales in favor of structures that do not have term limits. In the US, for example, elections are essentially completely controlled by private companies from the media to the National Conventions, and term limits check the power of popular candidates (and therefore popular sentiment) versus capital, which does not expire in 8 years.

      • Comment105@lemm.eeBanned from community
        02·
        2 years ago

        Why the fuck do both authoritarian sides use “liberal” as an insult?

        It’s because they both think the common man should be submissive or forced to submit to their brand of authoritarianism.

    • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
      2·
      2 years ago

      Libs are subconsciously uncomfortable thinking about real politics. Too many contradictions with their world view. Leftists are not. Hence a lot of us engage with these threads, it gets to the top of our all, and more engage.

    • figaro@lemdro.idEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      As they get banned from more instances, the instances they are not banned at start seeing a higher concentration of them.

      • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        2 years ago

        Have fun worshipping the machinery of enslavement and death. As it crushes you, I hope it comforts you knowing at least you weren’t a tankie.

        • oatscoop@midwest.socialEnglish
          02·
          2 years ago

          The term originates from Soviet and aligned regimes sending in tanks to brutally crush protests and rebellions. E.g. The Hungarian Revolution, The Prague Spring Uprising, Tiananmen Square, etc. Some communists were disgusted at their fellows for cheering on said oppression (“Send in the tanks!”) and started calling them Tankies.

          Tankies fellate oppressive regimes and dictators. They’re the smooth-brained “communists” that live in a binary world where anything “their side” does is good and anything the west does is “evil”. They’ll claim any criticism of historically “communist” countries like China and Russia is a CIA talking point … because they’re idiots.

          TL;DR – they’re the MAGAts of the left.

          • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
            3·
            2 years ago

            Random observation but I find it kind of interesting how the talking points anti-tankies tend to bring up are things that, even if the worst allegations are accepted, are relatively minor compared to some other events you could bring up. I’ve heard so much about Tienanmen Square under Deng, but much less about the Cultural Revolution under Mao. And the Hungarian Revolution and the Prague Spring happened under Khrushchev and Brezhnev respectively, when there’s much worse stuff you could bring up about Stalin.

            I can’t help but think that this conflicts with the supposed definition of tankie of just knee-jerk defending anything someone does if they wave a red flag. If that were actually true, wouldn’t you focus on the most extreme examples by the most extreme leaders? The fact that there’s so much focus on people like Khrushchev and Deng, who were both more moderate than their predecessors, seems more like the point of the word is specifically to attack people who might have a more favorable view of those more moderate figures, while being critical of their predecessors’ actions.

            Which is to say, tankie isn’t actually meant to be directed towards someone who knee-jerk defends anyone with a red flag, but rather, it’s meant to be directed towards someone who defends anything at all about anyone at all with a red flag, by accusing them of being the former. In other words, it’s a word that demands the exact kind of knee-jerk response it’s supposedly criticizing, just in the other direction.

            In fact, it’s particularly interesting that these accusations of ideological rigidity and blind loyalty are in reference to Khrushchev, who did nothing but criticize Stalin, and Deng who controversially said that Mao was “70% good, 30% bad.” I don’t think it’s even possible for someone to defend everything done by both Stalin and Khrushchev

            • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              3·
              2 years ago

              “An actual communist is someone who hates any communist movement that has actually managed to successfully overthrow its country’s ruling class and take power,” I say without a hint of irony

      • carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        Too bad instances can’t defederate HB.

        Can you please elaborate?

        They seem to not understand that they’re tankies.

        Tankie is a social construct and is used to lazily discredit everyone to the left of bernie. It functions to libs the same way as “woke” functions for chuds. As a term it’s basically meaningless to anyone outside of the internet.

        • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          0·
          2 years ago

          I have only seen it used in reference to people who support dictatorial regimes with socialist aesthetics, mostly MLs. I have yet to see an anarchist be called a tankie. Also you can hear it IRL, not commonly though since most MLs are on twitter and the like and not IRL.

          • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            Based on your answer, I’ve discovered what tankie means: Tankie = Marxist.

            Successful Marxist movement results in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictator = tankie.

            Hence tankie is a term used to describe any Marxist.

            Thanks for contributing to this scientific breakthrough!

            • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
              0·
              2 years ago

              Nah, first premise is false in more than one way. You are conflating the ideology Stalin made with Marxism.

              The second error is that there has never been a dictatorship of the proletariat, every time it has been a political party that seizes power for themselves and not the workers. In doing so they become the ruling class with differing class interests than the workers.

              Marx must be rotating in his grave with the speed to power the whole globe at this point.

              • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
                2·
                2 years ago

                You didn’t do the reading :(. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a concept Marx and Engles adopted. Stalin didn’t create it.

                I don’t know what you think the proletariat taking control of the state is suppose to look like, but there will always be a communist party involved. The mechanisms of power exist to be ruled by a party.

                Communist parties should be judged by what they do for their poorest citizens. With that in mind, AES countries are doing a decent job. Things get better when they are in power, and get way worse if they are overthrown

              • WideningGyro [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
                1·
                2 years ago

                Yeah, clearly the Soviet, Chinese and Cuban workers had completely different interests than being raised out of poverty and squalor. Damn those dastardly political parties and their… diligent work towards eradictaing poverty while promoting actual, decentralized democracy.

                • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  Well, Cubans still live in pretty close proximity to squalor. They can’t even afford to maintain their own buildings, don’t have a functional transportation system, and people live on what, $20 a month? The one saving grace is out there health care system is decent. And by that, I mean much more equitable than in the United States.

                • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  Do you believe capitalism is good because it helped some people? The whole point of socialism is to put the means of production into the hands of the workers and not a vanguard party. Yea, the USSR did quite a lot of imperialism which it used to reduce income inequality of the Russian people but it was never socialist.

              • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                0·
                2 years ago

                the ideology Stalin made

                I would say Lenin was more instrumental in the creation of Marxism-Leninism, Stalin was just the guy who happened to be in charge when they named it. It’s also a tendency that has evolved a lot from what it was in the 40s.

        • BigNote@lemm.ee
          02·
          2 years ago

          I love how you guys have decided that your definitions are the only correct ones. It’s your primary weapon here, for obvious reasons.

          • carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            2·
            2 years ago

            I love how you guys have decided that your definitions are the only correct ones.

            You’re strawmaning hard here, because I never said it’s a definition or that it’s the only one. It’s just my understanding of the term. What part of it is wrong in your opinion? I want to consider it

            It’s your primary weapon here, for obvious reasons.

            Because it’s obvious that when you’re challenged on your understanding of words you have nothing to say?

      • JokeDeity@lemm.eeBanned from community
        1·
        2 years ago

        It’s such a fucking pain in my ass to have to block every single community from Lemmygrad and Hexbear. I’m so tired of seeing their dumbass 7th grade love of fascists and racism.

        • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          0·
          2 years ago

          One of the many things I love about Blahaj is that we’re no longer federated with Hexbear, there was a bit (frankly a shit ton)of drama getting there but those days when we were federated I blocked more Hexbear users than users from any other instance.

          Join us on Blahaj, we’re explicitly queer friendly and we don’t have to deal with Hexbear anymore.

          Of course once we can migrate accounts that will likely be a far easier sell.

          • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
            01·
            2 years ago

            Blahaj is run by far-right nut jobs and used by them as well. They hate anyone left of Regan

          • ikiru@lemmy.ml
            01·
            2 years ago

            I’m guessing you’re an anarchist, which I appreciate and so I totally understand why you may not like these instances, but do you ever feel like some of the people criticizing Lemmygrad and Hexbear are Right-wingers themselves?

            I fully support Leftist critiques but some of these claims are kind of wild. Someone claiming hexbear is racist? How would it be racist, from a Leftist perspective? It just seems to me like Right-wingers are attacking them with these ridiculous claims to get them to be defederated or at least to get people to stay away and not understand the humor. If someone critiqued them for defending the State when communism should include the dissolution of the State apparatus, the recuperation of initially revolutionary movements by global capitalism, etc. then I’d appreciate the Leftist critiques but it doesn’t seem to me to be the case. And it doesn’t seem to me like there is any monolithic position at hexbear either. I actually was further pleasantly surprised to see they had an anarchism community and also a Christianity community at hexbear, it doesn’t feel to me like they have a hard Stalinist party-line and don’t accept differences among the Left.

            I do get the feeling they don’t like Right-wingers though.

            • socsa@lemmy.ml
              1·
              2 years ago

              Hexbear unironically defends Russia, which is an extremely racist and homophobic place. Likewise, China is also an extremely racist place, which is increasingly opposed to LGBT advocacy as “western degeneracy.” And of course, they fall over themselves to defend tyranny, as long as it pays lip service to socialist ideals, while denigrating social democrats as insincere “shit libs.” Then they post their little arms crossed emoji thinking they’ve made some point.

              By and large these people are children who legitimately have an extremely narrow view of the world they seek to critique. They see Lenin write that “imperialism is something everyone other than Russia does” and that’s about as far as they look into the underlying philosophy of imperialism.

            • cooljacob204@kbin.social
              1·
              2 years ago

              I’m just gonna talk about your first paragraph. No they are not right wingers lmao. I fucking hate that you can’t be centrist or democratic socialist without some asshole (not you, you’re just asking) saying you’re a right winger.

              I believe the west has better equality, stability, quality of life, rights, morals, so and and so forth.

              And I think we need to greatly expand our social programs.

              However if I defend the west then suddenly I’m a right winger? Fuck off with that classification shit. I just don’t subscribe to Russia and China somehow being better then the US or the west in any sort of way.

              This is why these social movements never get any movement in the US. They’re too busy self hating and worshipping facists in the East.

              • ikiru@lemmy.ml
                0·
                2 years ago

                Thanks for your response and I appreciate the thought you put into it. I agree we need to greatly and desperately expand social programs. I also don’t think Russia or China are perfect, much less socialist, but I wouldn’t say the West—including the US—is categorically and unquestionably better in every sort of way. That being said, the Left does need to be broader in the West and everywhere else, which is why I think I’d rather hold solidarity with Leftists in these instances who I may not fully agree with rather than attacking them alongside Right-wingers and fascists.

                And, sorry, but, no offense, a centrist is a Right-winger to me and it proves my point.

                • cooljacob204@kbin.social
                  1·
                  2 years ago

                  My point is I’m only a right winger in a small niche bubble which is completely not the reality of things.

                  To most of the world I’m a lefty and to actual right wingers they would probably call me a communist (and sure incorrectly but not my point).

                  Right winger means maga idiot to most of the ppl in the US not democrat who wants to greatly expand our social programs and nets.

          • JokeDeity@lemm.eeBanned from community
            0·
            2 years ago

            This is what I mean, nothing you guys say ever makes even the remotest of sense. I can’t fucking stand that channel and everyone on your instance talks like their typical fans. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.

            • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
              01·
              2 years ago

              Why are you promoting their anti socialist talk points then? You have clearly fallen for the Fox News bullshit

  • somename [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    21·
    2 years ago

    Cuba is a beacon of progress and humanity in the Americas. Fidel Castro was a hero. Also a pro at dodging the CIA’s kill squads.

    • Asuka@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      2 years ago

      Cuba did some good things - in education, in medicine - but if it’s such a wonderful country, why is everything there a decaying flashback to the 1950s where everything is falling apart?

      • CloutAtlas [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        2 years ago

        Lmao, that’s a testament to communist Cuba’s success. No other form of government could withstand a US embargo for a year and not collapse. Cuba has withstood for DECADES and has surpassed the US in life expectancy. The buildings are kinda shabby, but homelessness, infant mortality, illiteracy are all LOWER than the US, the richest country in the history of the world.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        Because the US has been embargoing it for 50 years to prevent it from getting everything it needs.

        The UN regularly votes on the US embargo of Cuba, and only the US and its lapdog Israel support it.

        • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          The initial meme included basically all communist countries

          This meme is against the initial meme.

          Also which communist countries had dictators again?

          China, North Korea

            • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              1·
              2 years ago

              When?

              Always has been. Government taking control of every action of citizens is dictatorship. Theese people have total power of the country

              …Ergo…

              What??

              • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                02·
                2 years ago

                Always has been. Government taking control of every action of citizens is dictatorship. Theese people have total power of the country

                The DPRK and China both don’t have parties that are in any way capable of controlling every action of their citizenry. They both have massive grassroots democratic institutions. Hell, look up whole process peoples democracy and the taean work system.

                what

                The initial meme made fun of being against those countries as a socialist. This meme is against that idea. Ergo… the meme is against all those socialist countries.

      • Flinch [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_…

        First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist

        Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist

        Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist

        Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew

        Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me

      • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        Do you mean the german ones thrown in the camps or the soviet leadership who were the last of the eventual allied powers to do any sort of appeasement with Hitler (after exhausting all attempts to form an alliance with Britain and France) because communism is less aligned with fascist goals than liberalism is aligned with fascist goals, massive underexageration mine? Do you mean the communist low level officials who helped in a massive ethnic relocation program to move vulnerable minorities out of the way of the eventual german invasion? Or do you mean the population of the only communist nation which lost 26 million people, around 1/6th of their population, stopping the holocaust?

        Or were you referring to the joke about racism? If so, you gotta look up how the population of the USSR was not considered white at the time. Emma Goldman for example basically called Stalin a slanty eyed conniving Asian, for example. Nowadays slavs are still called orcs and shit by westerners.