You definitely are tapped in and fully aware of the real truth so why dont you educate some of us plebians about communist governments/leaders that clung to power despite being hated in their country. (being hated by gusanos and crackkkers doesn’t count)
His response and my response to it(was sent in DMS however he clearly would have shared if he was not banned and I want to share my response after taking the time to write it for any interested third parties):
“Thats a lazy eristic trick…”
No, it wasn’t a “trick.” It was sarcasm in response to your original claim, which was itself a lazy, absolutist statement. You opened with a blanket assertion about communist systems being inherently unaccountable and impossible to remove. I responded by mocking that certainty. If you read that as some kind of debate tactic instead of what it was, that’s on you.
“Not a dynastic absolute monarchy…”
If you mean the DPRK, you’re ignoring basic context. The Korean War never formally ended, and the US still routinely conducts large-scale military exercises right off its border. This comes after a war where US bombing killed an estimated 15% of the population (majority civilian casualties with estimates as high as 70%) and destroyed most infrastructure.
Given that history, it is not surprising they emphasize continuity and stability tied to the legacy of Kim Il-sung. You don’t have to support it, but pretending it developed in isolation from that pressure is not serious.
“…another one had to invade to stop the genocide…”
Calling the Khmer Rouge(who I assume this is about) “communist” is not just inaccurate, it’s indefensible. They were anti-Marxist in practice, hostile to Vietnam, and built on extreme agrarian nationalism that rejected industrial society entirely. Vietnam, an actual socialist state, is the one that overthrew them.
They also continued receiving international backing, including from the US, after their removal (the US of course being known supporters of communism (this is sarcasm not a trick)).
US support for Khmer Rouge after 1979
Reducing that to “communism gone wrong” is historical nonsense. It ignores both ideology and material alliances.
“…the deified leader…”
This is recycled Cold War propaganda. Even the CIA’s own internal analysis acknowledged that the USSR operated through collective leadership structures rather than a simple one-man dictatorship.
You’re repeating a narrative that intelligence agencies themselves recognized as misleading. That kind of uncritical repetition is exactly what you would expect from someone leaning on nationalist framing instead of engaging with actual historical material.
“For all I know you’re some privileged western kid…”
I’m a born and raised rural Chinese minority. I’ve done well for myself, but I’m far from rich. What I have experienced directly is my village going from abject poverty to modern living conditions in under 25 years, largely through state-led development grounded in communist principles.
Meanwhile, you’re speaking from Poland, where the political trajectory has been steadily rightward, with increasing hostility toward left-wing movements. Your argument reads less like analysis and more like it’s shaped by that environment, repeating familiar nationalist narratives instead of engaging seriously with the material history.
“…This resulted in shock doctrine… privatization… unemployment… poverty…”
Yes, shock therapy did all of that. And attributing it to communism is a fundamental error.
Shock therapy was the dismantling of socialist systems and the rapid imposition of neoliberal capitalism. The collapse in industry, mass unemployment, and social breakdown across Eastern Europe were consequences of that transition, not of socialism “clinging to power.”
Blaming communism for the outcomes of policies imposed after it was removed is incoherent and frankly idiotic. It’s also consistent with a nationalist retelling of events that flattens complex internal crises into a simple narrative while ignoring the role of external pressure and the economic restructuring that followed.
As for the crackdowns, they occurred in the context of systemic instability, political fragmentation, and mounting external pressures. Reducing that to a one-dimensional story about “communists vs workers” while ignoring what replaced that system is not a serious reading of history.
it’s shaped by that environment, repeating familiar nationalist narratives instead of engaging seriously with the material history.
This. From my experience our commies neglected educating the masses in even basic marxsim, to such a degree that it has done imo more damage than early liberal brainwashing of 90’s. No general strike during shock therapy, Balcerowicz running unoppossed, nothing. In fact the last wave of large protests was in 1988.
Removed by mod
You definitely are tapped in and fully aware of the real truth so why dont you educate some of us plebians about communist governments/leaders that clung to power despite being hated in their country. (being hated by gusanos and crackkkers doesn’t count)
His response and my response to it(was sent in DMS however he clearly would have shared if he was not banned and I want to share my response after taking the time to write it for any interested third parties):
No, it wasn’t a “trick.” It was sarcasm in response to your original claim, which was itself a lazy, absolutist statement. You opened with a blanket assertion about communist systems being inherently unaccountable and impossible to remove. I responded by mocking that certainty. If you read that as some kind of debate tactic instead of what it was, that’s on you.
If you mean the DPRK, you’re ignoring basic context. The Korean War never formally ended, and the US still routinely conducts large-scale military exercises right off its border. This comes after a war where US bombing killed an estimated 15% of the population (majority civilian casualties with estimates as high as 70%) and destroyed most infrastructure.
The Korean War casualty estimates
Given that history, it is not surprising they emphasize continuity and stability tied to the legacy of Kim Il-sung. You don’t have to support it, but pretending it developed in isolation from that pressure is not serious.
Calling the Khmer Rouge(who I assume this is about) “communist” is not just inaccurate, it’s indefensible. They were anti-Marxist in practice, hostile to Vietnam, and built on extreme agrarian nationalism that rejected industrial society entirely. Vietnam, an actual socialist state, is the one that overthrew them.
They also continued receiving international backing, including from the US, after their removal (the US of course being known supporters of communism (this is sarcasm not a trick)). US support for Khmer Rouge after 1979
Reducing that to “communism gone wrong” is historical nonsense. It ignores both ideology and material alliances.
This is recycled Cold War propaganda. Even the CIA’s own internal analysis acknowledged that the USSR operated through collective leadership structures rather than a simple one-man dictatorship.
“Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership” (CIA memo)
You’re repeating a narrative that intelligence agencies themselves recognized as misleading. That kind of uncritical repetition is exactly what you would expect from someone leaning on nationalist framing instead of engaging with actual historical material.
I’m a born and raised rural Chinese minority. I’ve done well for myself, but I’m far from rich. What I have experienced directly is my village going from abject poverty to modern living conditions in under 25 years, largely through state-led development grounded in communist principles.
Meanwhile, you’re speaking from Poland, where the political trajectory has been steadily rightward, with increasing hostility toward left-wing movements. Your argument reads less like analysis and more like it’s shaped by that environment, repeating familiar nationalist narratives instead of engaging seriously with the material history.
Yes, shock therapy did all of that. And attributing it to communism is a fundamental error.
Shock therapy was the dismantling of socialist systems and the rapid imposition of neoliberal capitalism. The collapse in industry, mass unemployment, and social breakdown across Eastern Europe were consequences of that transition, not of socialism “clinging to power.”
Blaming communism for the outcomes of policies imposed after it was removed is incoherent and frankly idiotic. It’s also consistent with a nationalist retelling of events that flattens complex internal crises into a simple narrative while ignoring the role of external pressure and the economic restructuring that followed.
As for the crackdowns, they occurred in the context of systemic instability, political fragmentation, and mounting external pressures. Reducing that to a one-dimensional story about “communists vs workers” while ignoring what replaced that system is not a serious reading of history.
This. From my experience our commies neglected educating the masses in even basic marxsim, to such a degree that it has done imo more damage than early liberal brainwashing of 90’s. No general strike during shock therapy, Balcerowicz running unoppossed, nothing. In fact the last wave of large protests was in 1988.