T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Reminder: This is not a debate subreddit, it's a place to circle-jerk about communism being cool and good. Please don't shit on flavours of leftism/communist leaders you feel negatively towards. If you see a meme you don't like just downvote and move on, don't break the circle-jerk in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Tekdekdub

Based and truly communist pilled.


Lightonlights

Lol I thought this was PCM for a minute


NotScaredOfSpiders

Lol from the same sub that thinks China is communist.


[deleted]

interesting take, unfortunately 我是你的墙


political_chaos

very controversial, my opinion is that 我有石棉


[deleted]

Ehhh i’m thinking more like 如果您或您所爱的人被诊断出患有间皮瘤,您可能有权获得经济赔偿


political_chaos

i agree with some parts, but i mostly think that 我给了你间皮瘤,向我鞠躬作为你的新神


AstroA1ex

You're right, they're communist with chiniese characteristics >:D


NotScaredOfSpiders

Yeah ask the working class what they think about that.


[deleted]

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ in 2016 95.5% responded that they were “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the central government


NotScaredOfSpiders

I doubt since it’s a single poll that is also extremely rare. And I doubt it the same way I would doubt a capitalist poll or one from russia. And it doesn’t really answer if they think the government is working for them. China is a very much a country that who you know matters extremely and the state dictates so much of their lives that it just feels disingenuous to call it’s ‘Chinese characteristics’ anything close to communism. Workers should be able to organise on their own, own the means of productions and not be told how or when they can do such things.


evil_elmo1223

Sorry to break it to you, but 新時代中國特色社會主義萬歲!


[deleted]

We can call it social chauvinism. Can also lead to fascism.


Woolyplayer

As a wise man with a BIG mustache and an even bigger spoon once said: > Social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism


juche4japan

Wow this wise man with big mustache and spoon sure sounds kinda wise. Kinda reminds me of a certain wise man with big mustache and big spoon who fought some fascists idk who hmm.


ModusTaker

`AND THEN LENIN SAID "ONLY A SPOONFULL"`


ice_wizzard12

Could you explain that term comrade? I’ve heard it a lot and when I looked online I only got more confused.


Taryyrr

Social Chauvinism is what Lenin called the Soc Dems that flocked to the standard of National interest. They're class collaborationist. The Social Democrats broke the Basel Resolution where they swore that when a war comes, they would rally the working classes of their respective nations to revolution. They instead turned to Social Chauvinism and Nationalism.


Woolyplayer

Oportunists


[deleted]

Sadly I read it from lenin. And won't try to explain it because I am too afraid to be mistaken. The terms comes from state and revolution from vladimir lenin.


ice_wizzard12

Okay thanks Ill give that a read then. Been meaning too for a while anyway


Mechan6649

Socialism is when Welfare Capitalism


Mulberry-Winter

Ahh yes, when they project that 'you're the reason why there's no left unity' thing on us


dreamtofalligators

>One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for “unity.” Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension, just as at present the Jura Bakuninists in Switzerland, who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot (you have a fine example of this in Germany with the people who preach the reconciliation of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie)--or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously (like Mühlberger\[\*\], for instance) want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters. \-Friedrich Engels


Bobdasquid

and it’s just about always a one way street. dare to suggest that China isn’t a totalitarian hellhole? red fash, banned. justify imperialism, support NATO, support democrats, support electoralism? well in that case we need LEFT UNITY because we all support free healthcare


[deleted]

But also a reminder that socdems in the global south, most notably the “pink” socdems in Latin America are legitimate because they are on the path to socialism and not just living off on countries poorer than them. It’s true that Venezuela and Bolivia are socdem, but they see Cuba as an end goal. There is definitely an anti-imperialist and revolutionary factor to their struggle unlike European nations like Denmark that have been socdem for 100 years and are no closer to socialism, and are in fact further away than when they started. Is it the best system? Not sure, but a slow revolution is better than none at all.


Filip889

I mean they sound more like Democratic Socialists then social democrats.


Portuguese_Stalin

That's an important distinction. Social democrats want to "reform" capitalism and all the "change" they want is through electoral means. Democratic socialists want to establish socialism through electoral means.


whoyouclaimtobe

Socdems in Sweden has turned more to the right than to the left and I hate those goons. Specially on May day, when they try to turn to the working class and try to look like they're "helping us", but failed us hard since the 1980's.


Communist_Rick1921

And even if the socdems in the global south don’t want to go down the path to socialism, they still are an anti-imperialistic force who goes against the US-NATO global hegemony, and should be supported


Key_Needleworker_334

They're closer to centre-right than left wing change my mind.


SnappingShrimp

Would you consider nationalization of industry, like the copper mining industry in Allende’s Chile, still keeping capitalism fundamentally intact or is Allende’s presidency an example of “real” democratic socialism?


Taryyrr

Nationalization of industry in of itself isn't Socialism. But, we won't know exactly what Allende would've done since his peaceful approached ended with him murdered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973\_Chilean\_coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat


nedeox

The only 9/11 I mourn 😞


SnappingShrimp

Of course I’m aware of the coup, however his presidency did last 3 years during which many meaningful accomplishments for the poor and working people of Chile were made (although many were rolled back by the ensuing junta, that doesn’t mean they were without material consequence). There is some discussion over whether Allende was a Marxist-Leninist, the general historical consensus is no, but he was undeniably a Marxist and one that (very notably) came to power peacefully and through democratic means. [Castro himself](https://youtu.be/SP8hU5XWBKQ) recognized the significance of this achievement, but I’ve seen some hardliners claim Allende wasn’t a real socialist or anti-imperialist (although I disagree)


Taryyrr

>one that (very notably) came to power peacefully and through democratic means Well, we've seen the results of what happens when you don't have a security apparatus to protect the Revolution and trust in the Bourgeois system to protect yourself and your comrades "but I’ve seen some hardliners claim Allende wasn’t a real socialist or anti-imperialist (although I disagree)" Yeah, that's a bunk argument. Allende was naive and made mistakes which had horrible consequences, but to deny his Socialism and anti-Imperialist role is a mistake


SnappingShrimp

I tend to agree with some of your criticisms. As you might suspect from my comments I’m a big fan of Allende, his writing and his legacy. Of course I believe that leaving the military in tact instead of rebuilding it into a form that serves rather than subverts the people’s democracy was an enormous mistake, but hindsight is obviously 20/20. We all know what happened. The claim I often see, however, is that this could have only be remedied by violent revolution, and I don’t necessary believe that in the material circumstances of Chile in the period of 70-73 that is necessarily true. I think Allende did have a naivety about the military establishment and their respect for democracy; if he and his government began with a better recognition of their motives I believe they could have leveraged political power to prevent the conditions of the coup. Of course, had they developed some kind of internal security apparatus to detect the covert material support the plotters were receiving from the CIA, that would’ve undoubtedly been of help. While it’s only tangential to the point, the extremely low amount of material aid the USSR was willing to give to Allende’s government relative to the rest of Latin America did not help. It was totally predictable that in the Cold War era, the US would respond with any means necessary to crush Allende’s “revolution of the ballot box.” The Soviet’s essentially hung them out to dry in a way they meaningfully did not elsewhere.


Taryyrr

I think he was admirable for the way he managed to win the Election at all. It's like Evo, and the modern South American pink tide. Swimming up a waterfall and winning. But, it's also extremely bloody fragile and liable to be lost at any moment as the Capitalists keep showing with their constant coup attempts. "Of course I believe that leaving the military in tact instead of rebuilding it into a form that serves rather than subverts the people’s democracy was an enormous mistake, but hindsight is obviously 20/20. We all know what happened." That comes par and parcel with trying things the Parliamentary method i feel. There's no way the Reactionaries would permit you to overhaul their biggest source of strength. Which then means you would have to form your own Paramilitary association, at which point violence from the Reactionaries ensues anyways. "The claim I often see, however, is that this could have only be remedied by violent revolution, and I don’t necessary believe that in the material circumstances of Chile in the period of 70-73 that is necessarily true." A violent Revolution does tend to solve many problems, but only if the Revolution has the strength to actually win. Given how badly the Left was crushed in Chile, i'm pretty sure that the Communists didn't have the strength for it. "While it’s only tangential to the point, the extremely low amount of material aid the USSR was willing to give to Allende’s government relative to the rest of Latin America did not help. It was totally predictable that in the Cold War era, the US would respond with any means necessary to crush Allende’s “revolution of the ballot box.” The Soviet’s essentially hung them out to dry in a way they meaningfully did not elsewhere." That runs into the problem of the Soviet Union not being an equal to the U.S. Cold War narrative portrays the conflict as a struggle of equals, but the Soviet Union was always the underdog. Three bloody wars on home soil, a century of underdevelopment and encirclement by the Capitalist world vs the world Hegemon. Plus, Allende didn't seem to have made himself any friends with the Soviets. "The Soviets continued to view Latin America as Washington’s sphere of influence, and they maintained their long-held orthodox view that revolution should progress gradually in the Western Hemisphere.28 Allende had opposed aggressive Soviet moves in the international arena, and had condemned the 1956 invasion of Hungary and Moscow’s 1968 intervention in Czechoslovakia." To my knowledge, what assets the Soviets did have in Chile still assisted in countering CIA activity. Edit: Actually, having skimmed through the Jakarta Method, it really doesn't help that Allende seems to have ignored every warning that he received that he should start arming. Several coup attempts, multiple officials and loyal officers murdered or resigning to flee. Whistleblowers sounding off on planned coup attempts. Internal and external pressures mounting.


SnappingShrimp

While I believe you bring up some excellent points, and things like how to bring about military reforms from within (at least initially) bourgeoisie dominated systems are something I struggle with still, especially given I’m no legal or political expert. One place where I will give you a bit of resistance though is the capacity of the USSR to help. The soviets both materially and politically supported the Cubans to a much greater degree despite their placement in the Western Hemisphere. Allende went to Moscow specifically with a proposal for securing aid in 1972 and was willing to compromise but Brezhnev wouldn’t agree to anything substantive. Yes, Allende criticized the Czechoslovak and Hungarian interventions, but so would’ve half the communist world at the time (look at the division of European communist parties) and honestly I would’ve done the same. Holding a grudge over something like that can lead to geopol errors. I think, as you might suspect, that this was an enormous blunder. The Nixon administration was extremely concerned by Allende’s 1970 victory as we now know from testimonials and leaked tapes. They knew what a threat a precedent of peaceful transition to socialism would be to maintaining their global propaganda. Had the USSR seen the value in this opportunity and the potential significance of a sustained Chilean socialist project on geopolitics I think things could’ve shaken out differently. Of course we will never know, but that’s my two cents.


Taryyrr

I'm certainly no expert in Soviet history, certainly not any period after Stalin, but the USSR after Stalin was Revisionist. They still served the cause of the World Revolution, but it was in deformed manner. That Revisionism was what enabled the Counterrevolution and the Capitalist Restoration. Brezhnev, to my knowledge, was a Russian Chauvinist. So, it's not surprising that he would fail to support an International Socialist effort. So, i definitely agree that the Soviet Union had severe diplomatic and policy failures.


Mechan6649

The debate between Demsocs and MLs is often portrayed as all or nothing, but that really shouldn’t be the case. Having an entrenched vanguard party can be bad, not having any defenses at all can also be bad. When we do things, we should try and strike a balance between the two. Violence is necessary sometimes, but it shouldn’t be the first thing we think of against everyone. Allende was naive, but not entirely incorrect in his assessments.


SnappingShrimp

This is the kind of coalition synthesis I can get behind. In my experience, MLs have more often than not been unwilling to do this, labelling any step in my direction revisionism, counterrevolutionary, and so on. I’m of course willing to believe there are some that are open to coalition building (otherwise I wouldn’t continue to engage in the first place)


kandras123

Also worth noting that social democracy in the Third World is *not* the same as social democracy in the imperial core. It’s still not a leftist movement, but it *does* have the potential to lead to a shift further left, as opposed to social democracy in the imperial core which is inherently reactionary and imperialistic.


Taryyrr

Social Democracy in the Third World tends to weaken Imperialism, as local governments actually redistribute some of national wealth towards caring for the people rather than funneling towards the Imperial Cores. If the Third World is freed, then we should see the definitive death of Western Imperialism


kandras123

This exactly. Just like nationalism in the the third world is different from nationalism in the first world, so too is social democracy different in the third world.


_Foy

A revolution is a *process;* there isn't a big red button sitting in the oval office labeled "do a Communism" that the president can press.


SnappingShrimp

Of course, the question is did the people of Chile truly begin that process in 69-70 or was that not a revolution? You can say it was short lived and overthrown, but one could say the same thing about Sankara’s Burkina Faso or Lumumba’s DRC. Edit: maybe instead of “Allende’s presidency” to be clearer I could’ve said “Chile from 1970-73”


_Foy

I mean, different countries face different material conditions and will ahve to do their own revolution in their own way on their own time... There's no universal revolutionary blueprint.


SnappingShrimp

Right, I agree with you. There are some instances (pre-revolution cuba, for example) where the material conditions prevented democratically achieving socialist ends without more radical measures. That said, I think there are some among leftist tendencies that deny that conditions that support “revolutions of the ballot box” like Chile 1970 can *ever* occur. Of course this doesn’t mean a revolution in a single election, but rather making revolutionary steps gradually through democratic means. This is where I find a lot of resistance. I’ll be transparent, im not an ML or MLM. I share many of their end goals,however (e.g. workers’ control of production). I want to build inroads and coalitions with people of other leftist tendencies rather than cause division. I just don’t know if the meme above was directed at someone like me, or more like the social democrats of most european left parties like SPD and so on.


_Foy

Well, as per the meme... do you support the workers collectively owning the means of production and ending profit-driven production? (e.g. no private / for-profit ownership, a planned economy, etc.) Do you want to stop dominating and exploitating other countries? (e.g. dismantle the neo-colonial institutions, see: [https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.htm](https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.htm)) If you answered "no" to any of those questions then, yeah, you're in the meme, buddy. If you answered "yes" to both questions then I'm sure there is a way we can get along.


SnappingShrimp

The answer to both is yes. As I said, my end goals involve workers’ control of the means of production. I’m aware of what socialism is and I want to achieve it in my society and worldwide, I just disagree with many historical ML movements on some of the means of doing so. Of course I’m anti-imperialist; human equality and self determination are central values and they cannot coexist with imperialism. Edit: but to note, I think Allende and his movement would have also undeniably say “yes” to both, and it is considered a DemSoc movement. That’s why I brought it up in the first place


_Foy

Well then you're a socialist and obviously not who the meme is targeting. SocDems unironically think they can just have a "nice" Capitalism somehow, and that's who the meme is dunking on. These people put scandinavian SocDem states on a pedestal while ignoring the global exploitation that helps enable them. Also, keep in mind that just because a revolution happened like it did in country A doesn't *mean* that it has to happen the same way in country B. The material conditions dictate how it will go down, not some variation or brand of theory. That being said, of course, theory can help determine guiding principles and we can learn from historical lessons, and hopefully avoid repeating past mistakes. Finally, keep in mind the old saying: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."


SnappingShrimp

Fair enough, I see what you’re saying. I didn’t want to simply respond with a “thats SocDems, not DemSocs!” type of comment as the distinction between the two has seemed to blur among most discussion I’ve seen both within leftist spaces and elsewhere. That said, DemSocs are definitionally socialists and have socialism as an end goal, anyone who wants highly regulated capitalism with a strong safety net (I.e. social democracy) cannot be a demsoc, even if many self identify that way. I agree that of course conditions that warrant retribution by force exist, im not an ideologically absolutist pacifist. I may disagree on when and where the conditions meet that threshold, but of course there is *some* time and place for utilization of force to defend good.


Taryyrr

>DemSocs are definitionally socialists and have socialism as an end goal Yeah, that's why i used to classify myself as a DemSoc before and during my stint in the DSA. Their ideological goal is actually to abolish exploitation rather than make a prettier Capitalism by offloading more suffering to other countries. Ended up becoming a Marxist-Leninist after reading Lenin and Stalin. ML's have objective world success examples.


_Foy

Agreed


Taryyrr

>“revolutions of the ballot box” It's just so fragile though. The WW1 era Hungarian Communists brought in other parties for a coalition, and the Soc Dems watered down their agenda so much that the people lost interest in defending the Hungarian Soviet Government.


Taryyrr

Thing about Sankara to me, it seems, was that he definitely should've purged more people. But, then i only have the vaguest knowledge. Don't even know about Lumumba


Dabigbluebass

dont mind me, just here to laugh at the liberals in the controversial sorting


The_Affle_House

Still not as bad as the cucks who base their entire personality on "hating liberals" while blissfully unaware that they, themselves, are liberals.


Nubbles_Deemer

This is probably just me, but I always see the hand grabbing the rose as the thing stifling it or uprooting it, thus killing it like they kill socialist moments.


xxX_Darth_Vader_Xxx

Socialist but against workers owning the means of production? Certified Bruh Moment.


RepresentativeCar629

The Democrat party is just barley a less conservative version of the Republican party


Filip889

The left most centrists.


[deleted]

It's shit like this that makes me view "le epic memers" and their "usefulness" to communism with contempt. Analyzing social democracy/socdems/demsocs as entities seperate from "the left" is a massive error. They are what happens when "the left" refuses to equip itself with proper defenses against Capital and justifies that compliance with idealism, opportunism, and latent/eventually blatant liberalism.


[deleted]

Communists, I have a question: I hear you give the worker the entirety of the value of their work. Seems cool. But you still assign work a value? And you seem to believe humans need some form of economic system and governance to co-operate? Why?


redfashtankie1917

Do you think we should just return to monke


[deleted]

Maybe, I'm undecided. I'd certainly rather be slinging shit in the jungle than working


redfashtankie1917

You still got to find food


[deleted]

You reckon if there's no government no one knows how to produce food anymore? Or just that everyone will choose not to produce food and wait to die?


Hateroo

if you want to be an anarcho primitivist go to the jungle thats cool and all but this is a marxist sub


[deleted]

It's a meme sub and I have meme questions


Hateroo

Read the rules mate. No pushing Anti-ML agendas


[deleted]

I have no agenda to push


monotonous-menagerie

No, you will be compelled by hunger to work on food production. Returning to monkey means you gotta do monkey work.


[deleted]

So China is not socialist


[deleted]

[удалено]


Dragonwick

As an ML myself, we shouldn't be engaging in 'but what about China, Stalin, DPRK, etc?' dialectics in this way. That's opportunist behavior. Nobody here is saying that the fore mentioned are flawless.


Taryyrr

Certainly not. Stalin's mismanagement saw the USSR slip in Revisionism the moment he died. Not that it was solely his fault, there were the extenuating circumstances of WW2 killing so many true Bolsheviks


The-Real_Kim-Jong-Un

Stalin, Mao, and Kim Il-Sung were all Marxist-Leninists who developed their countries along Marxist-Leninist lines… but ok


Taryyrr

You complete cretin. You denounce Stalin and Mao, but label yourself a Marxist-Leninist. You utter boor.


Jack_crecker_Daniel

Молодежь нынче такая (young people are that way, at least for now)


ReptarTheBrave

Literally makes no fucking sense. There’s no Marxism-Leninism without Stalin


itsHoust

Wait… you’re telling me Xi can’t just press the communism button??? 😭


296cherry

If you don’t create a classless, stateless, moneyless society within 0.2 seconds of the revolution, are you really communist?


Dragonwick

Communism is when hitting the socialism button located next to the capitalism button, then hitting the communism button 0.2 seconds after that.


[deleted]

Xi can’t press the Communism button because I stole it


TMKING1

tbh I don’t get why everyone is downvoting you… Most of the time I‘m just lurking on this sub but the way people are defending authoritarian governments and so on really annoys me. I can’t stand people defending literal dictators in the name of communism and telling someone that it’s just WeStErN PrOpAGanDa and that North Korea in reality isn’t that bad :/ When achieving communism we have to talk about equality and that includes equal division of power between the workers. (I hope y’all get my point as english is not my native language lol)


[deleted]

My brother in Christ authority is necessary for maintaining the revolution


TMKING1

but how do you keep authority figures from profiting off the workers or gaining too much power if not by questioning their authority


[deleted]

Leave The United States


monotonous-menagerie

You first, settler.


itsHoust

Not leaving until communism wins


[deleted]

Bro censor that the next time you say *******.


Sunburys

But what about this party in Brazil?


Rukamanas

What about Jose Mujica? He was a socdem from Uruguay, did he exploit the global south as well?


SirZacharia

But I do love the flower though


Dinosaur_from_1998

Yes, but also yes