Hey I'd love to learn more about communism. What are some things you like about Mao and Stalin (e.g. ideas, theories, policies)? What do you think about Pol Pot?
Viewing post in [#CommunismIsEvil] - How about you work in the fields.
Stalin and Mao were communists. Their ideas were those of Marx and Lenin: dialectical materialism, working class leadership, social ownership of the means of production, planned economy, internationalism.
Pol Pot was not a communist. He himself wrote that his ideas had nothing in common with those of Marx. Because of this, he made many political mistakes in trying to solve Cambodia's problems. But he was not the bloody dictator that propaganda tries to present him as. The United States dropped a lot of bombs on Cambodia. They destroyed an already weak economy and filled the fields with mines and chemicals. There was a severe famine in Cambodia. Plus Cambodia had great internal conflict between the rich cities and the poor countryside.
Collapse, famine, internal conflicts, and a politician who made mistakes. Hence so many deaths. 170 thousands according to the CIA. And yet the main cause of these victims was the bombings, not Pol Pot.
To briefly describe these people would require a large article or a lecture.
stalin and mao are both fighting against genocide in their position if you really know what's going on. mao is the direct reason why china didnt turn into a shithole like cambodia. go read their letters and proposals and stop eating things that invested youtubers vomit out. you're literally one typical brainwashed by the mass media industry of capitalism. ffs at least search "true stalin" or "stalin: what they don't teach you in school" on youtube and read resources that come from another side, then stop being a one-sided maniac like a nazi.
go check who actually led the great leap forward and who proposed to stop the national purge. ffs just read. or are you anti-intellectual? does it burn when books touch your hand?
u actually succeed in driving me mad. I want some intellectual discussion on this, not some barbarian kicking down the door and rushing in to show the poop he just scooped from his brains. just block me if you hate reading materials
the stalin constitution literally gave the workers power of free speeches to criticize government activities and bureaucrats and even remove them from their position. anyone who dont let the people talk will immediately be purged from the party. there're tons of example cases in history that you can find. mao went even further allowing the people to overthrow local government and party section by fucking force(yeah people organized armies to fight against official troops), waging war against corruption and priviledge by mobilizing a down-top revolution. this is just what cultural revolution was all about. they executing oppositions? here's a historical fact. stalin proposed to strengthen the power of oppositions in the party, so that there'll be more chance for the party to review itself and fix mistakes. the central committe which denied 70% of stalin's proposals, denied it too with a democratic voting. they executing dissidents?what the fuck? are you living in an alternative universe? if you dont read please stop sending nonsense messages. it only shows your ignorance and stupidity.
you call wikipedia valid resources? at least download some solid pdf books, like "stalin's works" "democracy and terror of stalin era" "the unknown cultural revolution" lmfao, i went even further reading raw materials like cccp's statics around stalin era, and comtemporary materials written by lin biao and wang hong wen if you know who they are. what you're doing is no better than learning history from youtube. you're like reading materials made by hitler to learn about america. is that your literacy of learning history? reading things that people vomited out instead of reading contemporary material that comes from both sides? did you sleep over your history lessons or are you taught in an american school? or maybe you're just sttubborn because you like to defend capitalism by shitting on communism even at the cost of showing off your "intelligence". ffs leave me alone. i said i want a more intellectual discussion on this, at least with someone who has the basic literacy of learning history, not with a fucking barbarian.
"And you also downplay Pol-Pots genocide, of course"
I don't agree that Pol Pot carried out genocide. Because he didn't. When Cambodia went into famine, people from the villages started arriving in the cities. But there was no food in the cities either. Then people began to be driven back to the villages, where there was little food, but it was there. Many died on the way. Well, what else was Pol Pot supposed to do? Let people starve to death in the cities? And it was the U.S. bombing that caused the famine. Or am I wrong and will you tell us the truth? And what does this have to do with Pol Pot? Where were his policies consistent with Marxist theory?
"And both committed genocide lol""
Give me at least one example of a genocide committed by Stalin.
Here is the text from this article:
"The Cambodian genocide was the systematic persecution and killing of Cambodian citizens by the Khmer Rouge under the leadership of Communist Party of Kampuchea general secretary Pol Pot, who radically pushed Cambodia towards an entirely self-sufficient agrarian socialist society."
Now let's read Stalin:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/03/x01.htm
"Let us first deal with the point that in introducing socialism, the Socialist-Revolutionaries want to begin with the countryside. Is this possible? Everybody knows that the town is more developed than the countryside, that the town is the leader of the countryside, and, consequently, every activity for socialism must begin in the town. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, want to convert the countryside into the leader of the town and to compel the countryside to begin introducing socialism, which of course is impossible owing to the backwardness of the countryside. Hence, it is obvious that the 'socialism' of the Socialist-Revolutionaries will be stillborn socialism."
Stalin wrote about the mistakes of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, but it is also true of Pol Pot. Here we see that Pol Pot, with his agrarian socialism, has clearly departed from Marxism. I see no point in digging deeper into the subject now and parsing the whole wikipedia article.
Well, yes, the fundamental question here is whether or not a politician who calls himself a communist is building communism. This is the basis of Marxism. Many people call themselves communists, but to understand who is a real communist, you have to study the theory. This is very important, because it determines what kind of policies these people will pursue. Of course, only real communists will fight fully for the interests of the workers. The rest will either start making mistakes, like the Utopian Communists, or limit themselves to half measures and preserve capitalism (Menshevism), or pursue capitalist and sometimes nationalist policies, using Marxism for populist purposes (most current legal Communist parties do this). There are also the more cunning ones. They will mimic real communists until the revolution wins, and after the victory they will engage in power struggles and the restoration of capitalism. This is the most vile kind of politician from the point of view of Marxism. This is called Trotskyism.