The difference is that China did it to their own people
The classic Nazi talking point, I love this one!
Stalin is worse than Hitler because Stalin killed his own people!
Also the PRC was founded in 1949, I really don’t understand how someone can bring up the Mongol Empire and link that to Mao Zedong.
There total lack of coherence is giving me a headache
Why do they think it matters who was killed? Is this some nationalism brain thing I am too anti-imperialism brained to understand?
It’s just the exotic inscrutable Orientals bullshit
I am sorry, but the Asian brainpan has not meaningfully evolved in that timescale -
The classic Nazi talking point, I love this one!
Umm achually they identify as a socialist, they’re just “anti-authoritarian”. You tankies wouldn’t understand
yeah the qing were manchu, incoherent
The people telling you communism goes against human nature also tell you it’s human nature for a nation to slaughter people for land. Just normal human nature shit.
Jesus what a fucking terrible argument. I’m sure the native americans were just happy white people weren’t killing other white people. “At least it’s intentional,” they thought as they were being driven from their land.
Every time I hear someone try to claim things are human nature (greed, cruelty, selfishness, etc) I just interpret it as a confession of that person having those traits and an attempt to project that unto the rest of society to feel better about it.
One thing I like to do to really leave the libs shooketh to deconstruct that argument of “But greed will always be a part of humanity!!” is by telling them that if we look over history, murder has always been a feature of humanity.
But do we award the murderers with the most money, political power, and prestige in society? (I know exactly where your mind goes to when I say this but stick with me for a minute and remember that this is when I’m talking on the role of Lib Whisperer.) Or as a society do we actively take steps to mitigate the murderous impulses of humanity by disincentivising it, condemning it, and punishing those who commit murder?
Why then would you do something different with a negative and destructive impulse like greed? Why would you reward it, encourage it, and give the most political power and the most prestige to the greediest people in society?
Who would want to live in that sort of world?
If they object to this notion because they are suffering from a deficit of imagination, you can point to the potlatch ceremony, in which certain societies would give the most prestige in their communities to the people who gave the most to the community in these ceremonies, where people would sometimes even effectively bankrupt themselves in the pursuit of prestige within their communities.
I usually tell a person like that they should stop making pronouncements about all of humanity because they’ve clearly never stepped outside their comfortable little bubble long enough to realise that, shockingly, different societies do things differently and whatever they say about humanity is just a reflection of their own narrow cultural biases.
But do we award the murderers with the most money, political power, and prestige in society?
But murder is bad, with greed I’m just exercising my natural right to private property
i remember when i was studying my LLB my lecturer used the fucking tragedy of the commons in like the second semester to justify private property rights
Terry Pratchett on greed and fucking people over:
Do you understand what I’m saying?" shouted Moist. “You can’t just go around killing people!”
“Why Not? You Do.” The golem lowered his arm.
“What?” snapped Moist. “I do not! Who told you that?”
“I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People,” said the golem calmly.
“I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!”
“No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”I’m reading Making Money to my kid before bed time right now.
Moist probably killed more than 2.338 people though
2388
thousandmillionNice! I feel like the Von Lipvig series are very kid friendly. Are you doing a Pratchett run thru, or is it just making money? Because Wyrd sisters and witche abroad and the “I shall wear midnight” series are great for kids as well.
Edit: and Diggers!I love all his books. Vimes were my initial favorite but I feel like the Mort ones were the most compelling. Wyrd sisters are absolutely hilarious, too.
He’s a little young to really pick up on any of the jokes so I’ll read a paragraph and talk through it with him. He’s unconcious after like 3 pages. Planning to expand out as he gets older
By private property, do you mean like land, or your phone, with the data on it? I can understand sharing land, but I would want to keep my phone private.
He’s a communist so he’s making the distinction between private property and personal property. In this context:
Personal property is your personal effects and your home and your car etc.
Private property is stuff like businesses, factories, companies - all the things which are used to produce goods and services.
That sounds like it would get confusing when trying to encourage people to be communist.
Not really, private property is Capital and the means of production that reproduces society, by its very nature requiring labor its already a collective social phenomenon
Personnel property on the other is just that ‘personal’ its stuff that doesn’t require economic social relations with other human beings to use
I wouldn’t deny that.
I think the thing is that communists especially tend to cling to their names for specialised concepts dearly, although you see this with anarchists too—just mention the terms “libertarian” or “anarcho-capitalism” and they’re likely to quote that Murray Rothbard passage about how “their side” had “captured the term [libertarian] from our enemies” and how “We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical”, but I digress—and that’s because a whole lot of Marxist theory rests upon these words that are specialised terms to signify Marxist concepts, such as the term “imperialism” which means a lot more than just “an empire expanding itself”.
It does make it difficult for an outsider to start engaging with Marxist theory because it requires a fair bit of reading up and there’s a trap that some Marxists fall into when discussing these concepts where they use Marxist-specific terms to outsiders who aren’t aware of the Marxist definitions and concepts yet they expect those outsiders to just know what they’re talking about, which leads to people talking across one another.
I guess the other option would be to abandon those Marxist-specific terms which would mean that newer writing wouldn’t align to the preceding Marxist theory and there would be a need to bring everyone up to speed on the new terms being used for the same concepts, but trying to get consensus on what new terms should be used would be an impossible task given the fact that it’s not uncommon for different Marxist tendencies to be bitter enemies (for example, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists [i.e. “Stalinists”]) and there’s the belief that it would be a capitulation and it would be ceding ground to liberalism by doing so.
I think that the prevailing notion is that Marxists need to do the reading and to get across these concepts in order to really consider themselves Marxist and while that has its own downsides it also makes it more difficult for infiltration from fascists and feds because when someone hasn’t done the reading it stands out like a sore thumb to those who have.
I can’t find the CIA documents off hand at the moment but there was a memo lamenting how difficult it is for CIA agents to infiltrate radical groups (I think anarchist ones) because it’s like they’re speaking a different language when they talk politics lol.
Nah you just talk about like you just did
“Your honor, you must aquit. For you see I intentionally killed my neighbor for their land!”
Really shows just how vile they are. They honestly think everyone else is as cruel and disgusting as they are.
its really funny how libs alternate between “im just a smol bean, tankies are such meanies” and Reinhard Heydrich depending on what they are talking about
They were driven out
They were killed. It’s crazy how genocide enjoyers will sneak in the subtlest genocide apologia every chance they get.
Erm, yikes! I’m pretty sure that’s not true. This is what we learned in history class:
That’s fake right? This isn’t really a children’s schoolbook, right?
Though as an Australian, we’re taught that our country was “uninhabited” and the Aboriginals “didn’t use most of the land and left it for the settlers.” So…yeah, we’ve probably got a couple of these books floating around here too.
“First Nations” suggests this is a Canadian text book of some kind, and given that they’re currently engaged in at least one “land dispute” that would be a war of aggression if international law was good for anything other than toilet paper, and a number of other disputes with First Nations people, I’d say this might be real.
Ah yes, That country. The other one that usually gets forgotten when it comes to discussions of brutal slaughter of natives because they were quieter about it.
They’re the polite North Americans so of course they did their genociding in a polite way.
Oh yeah, and don’t forget that Aboriginal people never had permanent settlements either!
That’s fake right? This isn’t really a children’s schoolbook, right?
Tbf I don’t think many public schools here would go straight up terra nullius rhetoric nowadays, but the fundamentals of how the First Peoples here relate with and cultivate the land are still poorly covered, and weren’t even addressed when I was at school.
Protection from what? WHAT DID THEY NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM?
The puritans but they’re also
mobsters: “real nice Plymouth Rock you’ve got here. Sure would be a shame if someone were to settle it”
We fuckin tried to be diplomatic with these people and they called me a Nazi so now you all have our blessing to go forth and dunk
Fuck these fucking people.
They seem to think that being an Anarchist just means being anti-communist. To the point that they are literally parroting fascist taking points about “our people”. As if Jackson killing millions of Native Americans to steal their land is somehow not as bad as mismanagement of agricultural policy during a drought/famine? Because Jackson only oppressed the other right. Because a leader’s job isn’t to build a better world by harnessing the labor and skills of all people, but to either exterminate the other to protect their own or liquidate nature and the proletariat for profit
Every radlib thinks they got it all figured out til an actual anarchist shows up and then they all suddenly turn into Nazis
An an ML, I want to say I genuinely feel bad that Anarchists have to deal with this bullshit. Like, I can’t imagine being an Anarchist and having so many illiterate liberals claim their ideology while spewing reprehensible, absurd bullshit. Anarchists are comrades I respect and have principled disagreements with, but these guys? What the fuck.
Like clockwork. They don’t want to have to question their reality. They want to sit complacently at the end of history and watch the suffering around them with glib detachment or, when scratched, vociferous participation.
There’s no redeeming these groups, only hopefully some of the people in them. 196 will always be tainted because of it’s absolute inability to moderate itself. Sometimes you need aggressive purging of the ranks and the stench of 196 shows exactly what happens when you don’t take out the trash.
So Bookchin himself had some pretty terrible takes of course, but maybe he was onto something with the whole “lifestylist” critique.
Where social anarchism called upon people to rise in revolution and seek the reconstruction of society, the irate petty bourgeois who populate the subcultural world of lifestyle anarchism call for episodic rebellion and the satisfaction of their ‘desiring machines’…
He definitely got the treat obsession part right
deleted by creator
That is just open white nationalism and genocide denial
It is interesting tho watching how desperately fascists try to appropriate our terminology despite how they wield it so incoherently
Shows the inherent weakness of their positions and politics, they have nothing except what they can take from us
Ah yes, Han Chinese people colonised themselves. I am very smart.
‘whataboutism’ LMAO i literally havent heard an original critique from liberals for at least two years at this point
You know they’re right, we should hold the definitely still existing Golden Horde accountable for the actions of Chingis Khan. I’ll drive down to Ulaanbaatar and throw red paint on the giant statue right away (I would never do this the Mongolians are cool people and that statue owns.)
Is this guy implying that Genghis Khan…conquered land on behalf of China? Am I reading that right? Are they seriously that historically illiterate?
I guess it’s not an accident. This is deliberate.
I guess if you stuck your head up your own ass until you turned yourself inside out you could say that modern China is somehow a successor state of the Mongolian Yuan state? And that… uh… somehow… the Song, and Ming states… did imperialism? And that Mao did an imperialism because… the Yuan dynasty…
I’m sorry I’m trying real hard but I can’t pull any kind of sense out of that.
Is this what NATOnauts are telling themselves about how the world works to justify provocations against China? I can’t tell what is the work of one crank or the work of large numbers of cranks anymore.
Ah, we’ve been bamboozled. We’re looking at it backwards.
You see, China bad. Mao bad man. These are the facts, the Truth. Now we just need to work backwards to find out ways China is bad and Mao is bad. I heard Mao smoked cigarettes, which is very uncouth behaviour. And he smoked them in China. Clearly he was hoping the secondhand smoke would kill millions! What an evil guy!
man i really hope ada comes to her senses and kicks these dudes
wont hold my breath tho
“The native American Genocide wasn’t that bad, because they weren’t considered human”
So is 196 just /r/neoliberal2.0? Why did we
erate again?You make some good points about how Andrew Jackson killed only in defense of his own people. Reminds me of this book written by Andolfo Hütlie.
You might be interested in checking it out if you want to understand more about the necessity of the Trail of Tears in the development of America’s big beautiful strip malls and suburbs.
Andrew Jackson committed genocidal conquest, not sure where you got the defense thing, don’t think I ever used that word.
America bad, if that helps you clock out faster. Mao, Jackson, ghengis Khan, all the same rung of hell.
Be clear: I’m not advocating imperialism, but there is a certain difference between killing millions of people through displacement, and killing millions of YOUR OWN PEOPLE through idiocy.
You draw some form of distinction between “own people” and I’m assuming “not your own people” here with the intent of somehow conflating famine with a literal intentional and organized genocide with the connotation that the lives of “not your own people” are less valuable.
In fact you aren’t just conflating those two, you’re using the idea that killing your “own people” is somehow worse than genociding people outside your group.
You’re literally making an identical argument to the Nazis.
not to mention it was the last famine in a long line of famines for thousands of years
Notice that this fascist POS ignores the comments like yours, that call him out for what he is.
lol during Mao’s tenure China’s life expectancy doubled
not that you give a shit about the truth value of anything you’re saying
The kitten-burners seem to fulfill some urgent need. They give us someone we can clearly and correctly say we’re better than. Their extravagant cruelty makes us feel better about ourselves because we know that we would never do what they have done. They thus function as signposts of depravity, reassuring the rest of us that we’re Not As Bad As them, and thus letting us tell ourselves that this is the same thing as us being good.
Aha, I was looking for this article a while ago and couldn’t remember what it was called. Thanks!
That growth occured in many other countries too.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1302736/global-life-expectancy-by-region-country-historical/
All leaders of his type are shit.
no, you’re comparing a 200 year period to a 30 year period
not that you give a shit about the truth value of anything you’re saying
Shit at letting people die before the age of 40. Gottem
Mao, Jackson, ghengis Khan, all the same rung of hell.
Clown shit. China’s life expectancy was 33 years old when Mao launched the revolution. The life expectancy went up DURING the civil war and the fascist invasion by Japan where they murdered millions of people… Because shit was so fucking bad that they could improve people’s lives even during those conditions. Even that was an improvement over the prior situation.
By the time Mao was dead, it had risen to 61 years of age.
Did the man make some mistakes? Absolutely he did. But on balance he did far more good than bad through his mistakes and you are a clown for not seeing that.
You want hell? The 100 years of exploitation China went through under the British, American, French and other international bourgeoisie prior to Mao liberating the people. The liberals responsible for that 33 year life expectancy.
The dude killed 50mil plus of his own people, via his idiocy. He can’t take credit for life expectancy and not take blame for the needless deaths.
Clearly we disagree but I think one invalidates the other.
As reference, consider this source
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1302736/global-life-expectancy-by-region-country-historical/
China’s rise is obviously a good thing, but is similar to many other nations.
You’re missing the point. Life expectancy doesn’t go up unless you’re better than what came before. The point is that even with his mistakes, the people before him were killing far far more.
The issue is that you look at these things and never compare to what came before. You look at them in a vacuum. You have no concept of what development over time is, what process is involved with improving and developing a country. You isolate these events and strip them of their historical context for the purposes of misunderstanding them and miseducating others.
Looking at things that came before? That’s whataboutism.
Historical context? That’s whataboutismYou defend authoritarian leaders of your favorite flavor, I say fuck em all.
You don’t say fuck em all though. You specifically focus upon communist leaders while ignoring that communists are responsible for undoing the horrible exploitation that liberal leaders were doing. You ignore the vast improvements communists consistently bring, and use their past mistakes to argue against communists wanting to bring further improvements to existing society.
We on the other hand recognise that communists by and large brought improvement to the societies they succeeded in, and we understand that by and large communists would bring improvement to the societies of today. Will they be perfect? Fuck no. We’re not utopians. But it is incredibly easy to improve people’s lives by taking all the resources currently being exploited out of people and into the pockets of Musk and the rest of the bourgeoisie and instead putting it to use improving the lives of the people.
yet to see you say fuck em about any genocidal authoritarian cappies so far
As in capitalists?
Im not discussing economic styles, I’m discussing genocide, nation states, etc.
But if you need the magic words to finish or whatever fuck Henry Ford he was a Nazi
Many westerners come to socialism not out of necessity, but out of disillusionment. We are raised with the idea that Liberal Democracy is the best system of political expression humanity has devised. When confronted with the reality of its shortcomings, rather than narrowly discard liberalism or electoralism, the western anti-capitalist tends to draw sweeping conclusions about the inadequacy of all existing systems. Curiously, though it would at first seem that such denunciations are more principled and severe, they are in fact more compatible with existing and widespread beliefs about the supremacy of the western system. That is to say, when a Marxist-Leninist asserts the superiority of existing socialist experiments, they are directly challenging the idea that westerners are at the forefront of political development. By contrast, the assertions […] that we need to build a more utopian future out of our current apex are compatible not only with each other, as discussed earlier, but also do not really offend bourgeois society at large. They in fact end up not sounding too different from the arch-imperialist Winston Churchill holding forth on how ours is the worst system, except for all the others which have been tried. Western chauvinists, consciously or unconsciously, struggle with the idea that they should study and humbly take lessons from the imperial periphery. [15] It is much easier for the chauvinist, psychologically, to position oneself as at the very front of a new vanguard.
I say fuck you and everything you believe in.
"I say fuck em all (but I will do extensive mental gymnastics to justify why genocidal fascists are better than communists)
For someone that “hates authoritarians” you sure do carry a lot of water for genociders and slavers. China was better off with Mao than the British empire, and if you can’t admit that then you’re just a capitalist bigot that thinks it’s ok to exploit the third world.
Admitting this doesn’t even mean Mao is good, just that you can objectively evaluate reality and the material conditions that led to the formation of the PRC.Demanding perfection of any aes project while defending the genocide of the us is sus as hell
50m+ is highly disputed. The numbers range anywhere from 10-30m excess deaths in a 3 year time period. With some of those metrics counting the inverted birthrate towards death.
This is nothing out of the ordinary for developing nations, famine caused by mismanagement of agricultural land during industrialization happened in the US too, the dust bowl was a direct result of poor agricultural planning. The USSR experienced this as well, and India experienced it repeatedly.
Though India is the odd one out with the British famine protocols to basically allow mass death to keep grain prices steady. When they became a Republic they continued to experience famine for decades while China and Russia only had the one. Same as the US. Because all those countries had independence and were able to alter course and change policy to prevent it from happening again. While colonial nations and neo-colonial states were still being ruled under the old British famine laws.
Industrialization is a terrible thing to go through, and the pre-socialist states that attempted it took a century or more to build up their productive capacity and the whole time we’re going through constant famine as laboring power was shifting from agriculture to industry and development was eating up farmland.
The fact that China and Russia made it through that stage in under 50 years is a testament to the power of central planning.
Everytime someone tries to educate a lib, the number of victims of communism goes up by a million.
Though India is the odd one out with the British famine protocols to basically allow mass death to keep grain prices steady.
Isn’t it comparable to Ireland and the potato famine?
Stop editing your fucking comments after I’ve responded already
I don’t give a fuck about you, I added a thought as I thought it. it is my comment to do with as I please. I wasn’t going to reply two separate times.
Mao, Jackson, ghengis Khan, all the same rung of hell.
That’s not what you implied though. Saying “Mao is worse because he did it to his own people” is tantamount to running defense for Andrew fucking Jackson. Backpedaling to a “anti-authoritarian” (lol right) both sides suck stance is coward shit.
Also “whataboutism” is just a thought terminating cliché designed to stop liberals like you from experiencing cognitive dissonance and forming some semblance of a coherent worldview. It’s not a “trick” to point out double standards and historical context.
Hey @GBU_28@lemm.ee post hog
America bad, china bad, but you oughta post the original comment I called out. Doesn’t really matter though.
Andrew Jackson was a monster, and so was mao.
Neither country “elevated humanity” or whatever, and never will.
Cya!
Hey @GBU_28@lemm.ee how does it feel to be a running dog for imperialists?
Amber.
ambuh 
deleted by creator
IIRC in the old chapo sub posts about Amber caused heated discussion, the predictable nature of which was mocked by a bot that replied “Amber.” to every occurance of the word, regardless of context. Or at least that’s my read on it, it’s kind of an inscrutable bit.
If hating imperial conquest the world over makes me a running dog for imperialists, great, I guess.
Andrew Jackson and mao are 69ing each other right now.
Further, I can separately acknowledge that an authoritarian imperialist like mao is an embarrassment to his club by own-goaling his own people unlike anyone else on the planet lol
How was mao an imperialist?
He fostered the power of the state, collaborated in systems to deplatform and imprison his own people without crime, and engaged in war in korea (acknowledged that china’s help was requested, but war outside of own borders is imperial conflict). That makes you an imperialist in nature.
As a person of NATO, Andrew Jackson is allowed to order the ethnic cleansing of Indigenous peoples. People of NATO being able to steal land from Indigenous peoples is allowed because people of NATO are justifiably hierarchically over Indigenous peoples. I’m definitely an anarchist.
