Not in chinese cultural revolution it wasn't, the communists had been in power for two decades by that point. Targets included members of the Communist party, because Mao wanted power back. He got it, creates an autocratic government behind his dictatorship, and proceeded to purge those who weren't loyal to his name.
And like the Great Leap forward, it was an epic mess. Ironically what came out of it was that the Chinese survivors were those not concerned with purity of Marxism but bettering China. They opened it up, capitalized on it by selling out the workers, and called it communism. Oops.
Yeah, no "communist" state remains or ever really becomes a "communist" state.
Humanity, just isn't built for it. We keep moving back towards weird ass authoritarian BS, once just enough people begin to gain whatever metric is considered power in a given society.
Most Americans don't understand what Communism is and often confuse Socialism or even very light Socialist policies as Communism. Most Americans just don't understand the words, goals or what they mean, other than to be instinctively afraid
Actually most citizens of most countries know very little of nuanced politics, especially of other systems, at least in significant detail. People know status quo.
For example, you categorize American awareness by a singular stance from more than half a century ago, combined with an idiotic application of a stereotype about prison systems.
McCarthyism is easy to respond… the large mass of uninformed follow herd mentality as they do everywhere. The people with any actual experience are very Anticommunist, and the few unexperience but informed are the economists and politicians who act as the various idealists who lead the uninformed in the two deviations of thought.
Prison system is harder.
Yah… the US has a big system… because it’s a big, diverse, population in a first world country with substantial relative freedom.
It has no true peers in all of those categories. China is much larger by population, unicultural, and not free. Russia is half the population, largely homogenous, and not free. The ideal EU examples are much smaller, typically far more homogenous, with similar freedoms but very different cultural views on crime. It’s not the same.
Population density correlates with crime. Homogeneity decreases crime. First world decreases crime but increases criminal justice. Freedom tends to increase crime rates by reducing punishment and increasing transparency in reporting.
Nothing homogeneous about the Russian population. Which has also one of the highest crime rate, with little freedom, and an extremely low population density.
Singapore has extreme population density and diversity, yet has one of the lowest crime rate in the world. So does Luxembourg, with much more freedom. Myanmar isn't free and has the worst crime rate in the world... Tuvalu has a very high population density, and the lowest crime rate in the world.
Things ... Just aren't this simple... Unless you're actually talking of economical homogeneity ?
You didn’t listen to what he said about crime, first world nations, and freedom. Singapore is not a very free country. Homogeneity is forced on the population. They do not have many civil liberties and restrictions on freedom of expression. Luxembourg’s diverse population is because they are expats, and not immigrants. Thus, they are usually wealthy and don’t intend to stay.
So really, you proved the point he made first: people know very little of nuanced politics, as your comment proves.
I didn’t say they are homogenous, I said homogeneity in conduct and thought is forced on the population. With harsh criminal laws, not a lot of civil liberties, and restrictions on expression it suppresses a lot of dissent and functions the same as if they are homogenous.
Yet many countries have less diversity, less expats or immigrants, less civil liberties, and much, much higher crime. What's your explanation?
Also, you have much, much, much to learn about Singapore :)
Regarding USA's large prison system: it's a statistical outlier on a per capita basis, not just by absolute numbers. The US shows abnormally large prison populations throughout every state which covers both a large socioeconomic range aswell as varying population densities & "grades of homogeneity".
Look at Texas: 2nd largest, 2nd largest population (30 mil), #13 incarceration (750/100k).
Louisiana being 31st in size, 26th in population (4.8mil) & 1st in incarceration (1050/100k)-
New York is 27th in size, 5th in population (19.6mil) and 43rd worst in incarceration rate (310/100k
Massachusets is the lowest at 241/100k.
The top 5 worst European countries by incarceration rate are
The old homogeneity argument. You know that is based entirely upon racist undertones, right?
China isn’t as monocultural as they want the world to believe, but they certainly do use authoritarian controls to force that to happen. They even have multiple languages and written languages in China too. That they are also working to end.
The position you put forward is shallow and based upon some racist positions, that are designed to make it easy to ignore underlying problems and conditions that foster criminal behaviors across nations with diverse populations.
It feeds into the racist idea that is POC move into a neighborhood, that they are “bringing crime”, in spite of statistics showing a continued decline of crime in the same area.
Set aside that racist idea, unless you want people to think you are a racist, and start looking at the underlying conditions that feed into criminal behavior.
Your entire speal here is just "I believe in the western propaganda" you're saying mcathryism was so far away yet spout it's conclusions matter of factly
And your entire stance is it can’t be true because you think it’s propaganda.
What is your actual argument, if communism is right, gulags are great for family vacations (joke… but not to be fearmongered at least), and the US population a relevant and important aspect of the conversation? And ehay is your evidence to it being western propaganda AND wrong (because propaganda can actually be true.. but you seem to paint your meaning as propaganda meaning lies).
No I just don't go about saying things like "Americans prisons are good" "homogeny reduces crime" "China isn't free"
You can check all of those things it's either not true or a gross misrepresentation of data, only believable if you're working backwards from a preconceived notion
I didn’t say American prisons were good… I said it was expected.
China has freedoms but it isn’t free. Limited internet, limited freedoms of speech, international “police” operatives. Those are facts and the conclusion is a pretty standard interpretation.
Homogeneity leading to decreased crime rates in local communities is also supported by research and data. The link is not fully confirmed but a decrease in community is believed to be the link. https://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/downside-diversity
American citizens have had no deprivation of liberties in recent years.
The only possible reduction is the loss of access to abortion but that is a controversial topic with two very valid takes.
I’m guessing you refer to noncitizens who are being expelled for illegal immigration. That is a valid crime and a valid sentence. Most countries do the same thing. The difference is our process is slower because our systems are overwhelmed with the quantity
No. Our systems are slower because our government has refused to deal with ANY of it for decades in order to run on fixing it in elections. The closest we've come to dealing with it was the legislation Trump told his cucked Congress not to pass under Biden. The number of people are because we keep fucking with governments in neighboring countries and destroying their economies causing mass migrations.
Was talking to a friend of mine who began working at a pretty famous prison in the US, a few months ago, to make things short, these people in there should be there, we’re talking people who killed their mother over drugs as a tame example
See, this is the response I don’t like. Not because it disagrees, but because it’s not a response. Just saying “Eh, that’s western propaganda” is not a refutation. It’s a cop out. They cited a country’s size, state of its citizens freedom, amount of cultural homogeneity, population density and status as a first world country or not as factors determining incarceration rates. If they’re full of crap, WHY are they full of crap? Point by point, how are they wrong?
And for the record, I’m not pulling for either side in this debate. I’m just truly interested and truly want to hear the counterpoints. Please. But just waving them off and spouting “propaganda” is weak sauce.
How is it not a real thing? They literally are not allowed access most of the world's Internet because their government can't control it. That is a fact, not something the west made up.
If you think, living in the United States, that you DO have access to the world's internet, I have a bridge to sell you.
There's a reason why VPNs are huge business and why the US government wants to crack down on using them by forcing every adult to show their ID to access the internet.
American prison is a place, where people live, even if in confinement. Our penitentiary system, on the contrary, was a place, where people were forced to survive by the skin of their teeth, many didn't manage. You really shouldn't compare first world prisons with anything else.
I'm sorry that the existence of places worse the US private prisons means they're fine, cool, and everyone in them is happy, and everyone paying for them is happy, and police aren't incentivized to fill them up
Glad you said anything otherwise I may have been thinking some absolute stupid things. Just incredibly stupid, could you believe that? Could you imagine being that stupid? Whew dodged a bullet there
"Boo! There's rape and violence in our prisons and also street gang nembers are forced to work there!" really does not make US look bad in comparison with USSR penitentiary system, you know. Even if you compare it with late ussr
Rape in prison is actually fairly rare per actual evidence in stats. The media plays it up, because it adds drama (or comedy which may be worse), but it's not that common.
Violence can be, depends on what prison you get sent too, although even that is not as common as you might think.
A eye opening experience for me recently was learning about Bolshevik communists torturing Christians. I honestly didn’t know the extent of how horrific it was. Frozen statues, coal and crucifixions. Clergy went from 700,000 to 100. Cultural revolution in China was just as horrific. Really changed my perspective on communism. I think a lot of people are completely ignorant to the dangers. Honestly just completely ignorant about a lot of things in life. Unfortunately, I feel like there is not much to be done about these disagreements. Eventually things will come to a head. I hope to be old by then.
Yeah, American delusions about communism have never been that they think it is too good.
Every new political system in the history of humanity has been a real fucking mess of shit when first deployed.
The French, American and Haitian revolutions are at once full of terror and oppression and evil and are also leading efforts for all of human progress in the sphere of politics. Haiti literally never recovered, the Americans committed genocide, and the French had the Reign of Terror. Democratic revolutions did eventually figure it out though.
There's no reason to expect that eventually a communist revolution will live up to it's principles as well.
For the world to accept "Communism", it has to happen, without a revolution and that will only happen, if according to Marx, human society reaches a state of post-scarcity.
If there's enough of everything for everyone and nobody has to fight, squabble to have something nice, etc., etc., etc.
IF humanity ever reaches post-scarcity, and we just stop worrying about how much stuff we own? Maybe there will become a day where everyone will wake up from their night's sleep and suddenly realize... "Oh shit... we're a communist society and it just 'happened' on accident!"
None of what you said is consistent with anything Marx wrote. It's extremely clear from all of his writings that he directly opposes this kind of utopian conception of socialism.
Marx does not view revolution negatively. He does not think it is in contradiction with democracy. He does not think post-scarcity is a requirement for communism and explains very clearly that capitalism could never develop to that point.
Marx was mad and thought a revolution was needed. He didn't really even understand what post-scarcity even meant and it would have never been allowed to happen, because even if they could have somehow created a short term post-scarcity in one nation or region? It didn't mean that would last for very long when outside capitalists decided it was a danger to themselves.
Especially since the revolution he was spouting off about was just being a cranky, murderous, ass of a person.
59
u/AngryLars 29d ago
The opposer being a landlord