Why is fascism more taboo than communism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahhhhh yes.....the tired old argument that the Khemer Rouge, Mao's China, USSR, and North Korea "aren't real Communism!".

We just need a few hundred million more deaths to try out the communist experiment until we get it right.

Womp, womp.

People die everyday under capitalism. How many more millions need to die before it too is considered a failed system?

How many died of covid for profits? How many die in preventable workplace accidents for profits? How many die because they cant afford healthcare or their insurance denies them treatment? How many people starve and die on the streets of exposure because we treat housing and food as an avenue for profit rather than a human right? How many deaths of despair happen everyday due to the weight of living in a cycle of poverty required to sustain the capitalist system? Miss me with the bullpuckey.

Oh yes, communism where everyone will live in a magical utopia with free housing, free healthcare, free education, free childcare, and free everything. That's great on paper. Until reality sets in and someone has to pay for all of the free stuff. No one wants to work hard and no one wants to invent things if the state will always take it. You have zero incentive to do anything other than the bare minimum if you will get the same exact food ration as your lazy neighbor who does half the work. And that's why communism always fails. They have to point guns at people to work agrarian jobs to make sure they can even have enough food.

We will all be oh so great again when 84 year olds are forced to work backbreaking jobs on the farms in 99 degree weather like the Khemer Rouge forced their people to do while facing down the barrel of a gun. Their reward was 400 calories of plain rice to eat per day. But hey, at least the rice was distributed evenly! Never mind the fact that 20% of the entire population was murdered under Pol Pot.

But it wasn't real communism! Lol.

+1

The “no real communism” people always sound so uneducated.

Seriously? You truly believe that Maoism was in The Communist Manifesto or that Marx directed future people Like Pol Pot tp embrace forced migration, genocide, etc?

In communism, people own the means of production with little government intervention. Using the name communism in a brutalist regime is not communism.

That is an idea of communism. Show us one country in a history where your idea was successfully implemented without government intervention.

I haven't claimed that. I'm responding to the person who says the actions of Mao and Khmer Rouge were dictated by The Communist Manifesto. there is no clear line between the ywo.... just two crazy ass men with too much power

[Anonymous]

Why isn’t comparative politics part of our basic high school education? Millions of people would stop falling for these boogeymen like communism and Marxism if they actually understood what they mean and what they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t comparative politics part of our basic high school education? Millions of people would stop falling for these boogeymen like communism and Marxism if they actually understood what they mean and what they are.

It's pretty simple really. You just have to explain how in China, they didn't have property during communism they all had literal communal toilets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because communism, in theory, benefits the people.

….but it NEVER works out that way

According to who? The RWNJ textbooks you read in school?

Get real. Anyone who’s traveled the world knows planned economies are vastly superior than what we’re stuck with here.

You do know that DCUM posters are disproportionately likely to have actually lived and worked in your planned economies? And so they know from personal experience how much nonsense you are spewing?

God you are so wildly ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahhhhh yes.....the tired old argument that the Khemer Rouge, Mao's China, USSR, and North Korea "aren't real Communism!".

We just need a few hundred million more deaths to try out the communist experiment until we get it right.

Womp, womp.

People die everyday under capitalism. How many more millions need to die before it too is considered a failed system?

How many died of covid for profits? How many die in preventable workplace accidents for profits? How many die because they cant afford healthcare or their insurance denies them treatment? How many people starve and die on the streets of exposure because we treat housing and food as an avenue for profit rather than a human right? How many deaths of despair happen everyday due to the weight of living in a cycle of poverty required to sustain the capitalist system? Miss me with the bullpuckey.

Oh yes, communism where everyone will live in a magical utopia with free housing, free healthcare, free education, free childcare, and free everything. That's great on paper. Until reality sets in and someone has to pay for all of the free stuff. No one wants to work hard and no one wants to invent things if the state will always take it. You have zero incentive to do anything other than the bare minimum if you will get the same exact food ration as your lazy neighbor who does half the work. And that's why communism always fails. They have to point guns at people to work agrarian jobs to make sure they can even have enough food.

We will all be oh so great again when 84 year olds are forced to work backbreaking jobs on the farms in 99 degree weather like the Khemer Rouge forced their people to do while facing down the barrel of a gun. Their reward was 400 calories of plain rice to eat per day. But hey, at least the rice was distributed evenly! Never mind the fact that 20% of the entire population was murdered under Pol Pot.

But it wasn't real communism! Lol.

+1

The “no real communism” people always sound so uneducated.

Seriously? You truly believe that Maoism was in The Communist Manifesto or that Marx directed future people Like Pol Pot tp embrace forced migration, genocide, etc?

In communism, people own the means of production with little government intervention. Using the name communism in a brutalist regime is not communism.

The Chinese Communist Party under Mao was a capitalist party that never oppressed the masses and just wanted to borrow the name Communist party in order to win votes. Donald Trump caused mass starvation with the assistance of George W. Bush(who was literally Hitler) for the Chinese people, the CCP had nothing to do with it per truthful and correct history.

JFC DCUM posters are morons.

I really can't think of any other platform where I'd read that Mao didn't oppress people.

Progressives are profoundly illiterate when it comes to history. Just, dumbasses.

Your poor, poor indoctrinated fool. Believing all that crap you’ve been told, then coming here and looking like a complete moron.

I’m so embarrassed for you.

Please go clean your room, kiddo, and do your World History homework. You are far outclassed here and you know nothing.

[Anonymous]

Hey OP, name the country that Marx ruled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t comparative politics part of our basic high school education? Millions of people would stop falling for these boogeymen like communism and Marxism if they actually understood what they mean and what they are.

It's pretty simple really. You just have to explain how in China, they didn't have property during communism they all had literal communal toilets.

China is still Communist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t comparative politics part of our basic high school education? Millions of people would stop falling for these boogeymen like communism and Marxism if they actually understood what they mean and what they are.

It's pretty simple really. You just have to explain how in China, they didn't have property during communism they all had literal communal toilets.

You don't even understand the difference between PERSONAL property and PUBLIC property. Communism isn't sharing a toilet, it means some billionaire doesn't get to buy up things that should belong to everyone and sell it back to us for a profit. For example, in most developed countries they have robust public transportation available at a low cost. We don't have that here because the billionaires want to sell us cars and charge us for Ubers and escooters instead of funding buses and trains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t comparative politics part of our basic high school education? Millions of people would stop falling for these boogeymen like communism and Marxism if they actually understood what they mean and what they are.

It's pretty simple really. You just have to explain how in China, they didn't have property during communism they all had literal communal toilets.

You don't even understand the difference between PERSONAL property and PUBLIC property. Communism isn't sharing a toilet, it means some billionaire doesn't get to buy up things that should belong to everyone and sell it back to us for a profit. For example, in most developed countries they have robust public transportation available at a low cost. We don't have that here because the billionaires want to sell us cars and charge us for Ubers and escooters instead of funding buses and trains.

Gotta protect auto worker jobs and oil extraction jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t comparative politics part of our basic high school education? Millions of people would stop falling for these boogeymen like communism and Marxism if they actually understood what they mean and what they are.

It's pretty simple really. You just have to explain how in China, they didn't have property during communism they all had literal communal toilets.

You don't even understand the difference between PERSONAL property and PUBLIC property. Communism isn't sharing a toilet, it means some billionaire doesn't get to buy up things that should belong to everyone and sell it back to us for a profit. For example, in most developed countries they have robust public transportation available at a low cost. We don't have that here because the billionaires want to sell us cars and charge us for Ubers and escooters instead of funding buses and trains.

Gotta protect auto worker jobs and oil extraction jobs.

They don't give two f#cks about those people's jobs. They care about preserving their profits. That's what all of this crap is about. We all sell our labor and surplus value to these psychos under threat of starvation, incarceration, or violence. Communism/socialism at it's core is about taking back the resources the powers that be have stolen from us and sell back to us. That the very same kind of psychos have used it as yet another tool to hurt people doesn't change the fact that a system where resources are shared is a better and more just system than one where they are hoarded by a few.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t comparative politics part of our basic high school education? Millions of people would stop falling for these boogeymen like communism and Marxism if they actually understood what they mean and what they are.

It's pretty simple really. You just have to explain how in China, they didn't have property during communism they all had literal communal toilets.

You don't even understand the difference between PERSONAL property and PUBLIC property. Communism isn't sharing a toilet, it means some billionaire doesn't get to buy up things that should belong to everyone and sell it back to us for a profit. For example, in most developed countries they have robust public transportation available at a low cost. We don't have that here because the billionaires want to sell us cars and charge us for Ubers and escooters instead of funding buses and trains.

Gotta protect auto worker jobs and oil extraction jobs.

They don't give two f#cks about those people's jobs. They care about preserving their profits. That's what all of this crap is about. We all sell our labor and surplus value to these psychos under threat of starvation, incarceration, or violence. Communism/socialism at it's core is about taking back the resources the powers that be have stolen from us and sell back to us. That the very same kind of psychos have used it as yet another tool to hurt people doesn't change the fact that a system where resources are shared is a better and more just system than one where they are hoarded by a few.

Trabants and Yugos are amazing cars from a system with a few at the top.

Much better than 80s Benzs with a few at the top.

[Anonymous]

Atrocities have been committed by democracies too: Hiroshima, slavery, Japanese internment camps, eugenics.

Atrocities have also been committed by authoritarians too: Chinese famine, DPRK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Atrocities have been committed by democracies too: Hiroshima, slavery, Japanese internment camps, eugenics.

Atrocities have also been committed by authoritarians too: Chinese famine, DPRK.

The conflating of capitalism with democracy is propaganda. I get your point, but communism/socialism is an economic system. It doesn't preclude democracy, and could be argued to be far more democratic. The comparison would be to capitalist systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atrocities have been committed by democracies too: Hiroshima, slavery, Japanese internment camps, eugenics.

Atrocities have also been committed by authoritarians too: Chinese famine, DPRK.

The conflating of capitalism with democracy is propaganda. I get your point, but communism/socialism is an economic system. It doesn't preclude democracy, and could be argued to be far more democratic. The comparison would be to capitalist systems.

Agreed, but people think the US democracy is pure, that's why I coined it that way, rather than capitalism. Ergo, the US is no saint. It's also why I said authoritarians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn’t comparative politics part of our basic high school education? Millions of people would stop falling for these boogeymen like communism and Marxism if they actually understood what they mean and what they are.

It's pretty simple really. You just have to explain how in China, they didn't have property during communism they all had literal communal toilets.

You don't even understand the difference between PERSONAL property and PUBLIC property. Communism isn't sharing a toilet, it means some billionaire doesn't get to buy up things that should belong to everyone and sell it back to us for a profit. For example, in most developed countries they have robust public transportation available at a low cost. We don't have that here because the billionaires want to sell us cars and charge us for Ubers and escooters instead of funding buses and trains.

No really they had & have communal toilets.

The Chinese Communist Party under Mao made a very explicit “heavy-industry first” choice. The first Five-Year Plans (1953–1957 and onward) were modeled on the Soviet experience: pour as much capital and labour as possible into steel, coal, power plants, railways, tractors, and defense. Housing and consumer goods were officially classed as “non-productive” sectors and got what was left over.

That deliberate policy produced:

Tiny state-built apartments with shared kitchens and toilets (the famous gongfang or “public housing” blocks).

Slow infrastructure investment in water, sewage and household plumbing.

Austerity campaigns that made spartan living a virtue and damped down public complaints.

So while the country’s poverty and weak infrastructure set the baseline, the leadership did, in fact, choose to invest the scarce resources in industry first and accept very low living standards — including communal toilets — as the trade-off. Only after the post-1978 reforms, when growth shifted toward light industry and consumer goods and housing was privatized, did private bathrooms become the norm.