According to him, the country’s economy “hit rock bottom” in the first quarter, which could lead to a crisis.

Zyuganov also suggested that the situation this fall could resemble the events of 1917, when the communists came to power.

Video with English subtitles available here: https://bsky.app/profile/antongerashchenko.bsky.social/post/3mk3d7tu6m22v

all 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 64 points 6 months ago (31 children)

"He emphasized that such a scenario must not be allowed to happen."

Controlled opposition.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (29 children)

    MLs are always controlled opposition (and always have been), just look at how quickly they team up with capitalists to take out any real socialists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (18 children)
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (17 children)

    Spain, Korea, Ukraine, the Soviets.

    Any attempt at putting the workers in charge instead of the state is met with violence.

    It's not controlled in the sense that capitalist control them, it's just controlled in the sense that the state requires private property & structurally state-capitalism is closer to liberal-capitalism, so you get less pushback from the cops, bureaucrats, bosses & other assorted middle managers that still get to live off labor of the workers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (16 children)

    I figured you'd mention Spain, but I'm not sure what you're referring to in Korea. It was the Americans and South Koreans putting down workers uprisings there. As for Spain, the Anarchists weren't ever going to manage to beat the Nationalists.

    What you're failing to understand is that in the context of imperialism, and the imperial boot, such decentralized anti-authoritarian revolutions are impossible. That's why none of them ever worked, while all the revolutions that succeeded had to take measures to ensure their survival. Look at Poland and Solidarnosc - an anti-authoritarian labour movement, ergo a good thing, right? Except the result wasn't liberation or socialism, but another loyal member of the imperial core, happy to help keep the boot of capital on the necks of the world proletariat.

    If you guys ever manage to get off the ground and get a workers' federation going, I'll be the first to support you, and if you have to make a secret police to suppress the counterrevolutionaries, I'll keep my atodasos to a minimum. In the meanwhile, Marxism-Leninism is the only thing that's ever worked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (15 children)

    Man pick up a history book, you might learn something.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Association_in_Manchuria

    As for Spain, the Anarchists weren’t ever going to manage to beat the Nationalists.

    Lol, as if the betrayal by the USSR didn't decimate both the troops and their moral.

    Except the result wasn’t liberation or socialism, but another loyal member of the imperial core, happy to help keep the boot of capital on the necks of the world proletariat.

    Lol, it was just switching one imperialist capitalist boot for another. You have to be real stupid to consider the USSRs treatment of Eastern Europe as anything but imperialism.

    Or it's treatment of workers as anything but capitalism, just capitalism managed by the state.

    Marxism-Leninism is the only thing that’s ever worked.

    🤣🤣🤣

    Yeah China will be socialist any day now 🤣🤣🤣

    Why isn't the USSR on any maps anymore?

    How come Vietnam is liberalizing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (13 children)

    The USSR's treatment of eastern Europe was characterized by a net outflow of resources from the USSR to the Warsaw Pact, and within the USSR from the RFSFR to the other SSRs. In fact, a large part of the dissolution of the USSR was that Russian nationalists didn't want to share that wealth. This was very, very different from capitalist imperialism in which wealth is extracted from the periphery.

    Once again, I ask you what libertarian socialists have ever achieved. Have they ever acted as a geopolitical counterbalance to the US? Did they beat the nazis? Did they ever raise the literacy rates and raise the workers and peasants out of poverty? No, because they've only ever controlled a small region within one country during a civil war, and usually ended up losing. Come back to me with some concrete achievements, otherwise you're just a useful idiot for imperialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (12 children)

    Did they ever raise the literacy rates and raise the workers and peasants out of poverty?

    Litterally yes, not just in Spain, but also in Korea & Ukraine then the MLs betrayed them and gave the farms back to the owners, because authoritarian "socialism" only exists to replace capitalist oppression with state regulated capitalist oppression, because it's more paletable to the capitalist class, that's why they're happy to collaborate with them, to put down any sort of independent worker movement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (8 children)

    I would be interested in the example in Korea in particular, I had never heard of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    There isn't a lot of readily available info on as it was crushed by 2 repressive regimes, and the CCP isn't exactly welcoming to historians interested in a freer society within their borders that "socialists" and the Japanese empire both worked to crush.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Association_in_Manchuria?wprov=sfla1

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    This is quite interesting, and since there's so little information available we can only speculate as to why the Korean Communists assassinated their leadership.

    I'm afraid this does reinforce my point that Anarchist experiments tend to only arise locally in chaotic situations - in this case manchuria during the Chinese warlord era - and then get crushed. In wartime, Marxist-Leninist centralization and discipline tends to make for more resiliency, hence the Chinese and Korean communists surviving the war and going on to take power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Do you think Korean communist took power?

    Do you think they still have power (despite writing communism out of their constitution)?

    I don't think the success of a Korean warlord that paid lip service to communism in order to get aid from the communist block, was much of a victory for the working class.

    And while Mao was more genuine in his attempt to build a socialist socialist, I don't think modern day china with it's ban on unions is in any way more socialist than any other capitalist nation, especially not ones where workers enjoy secotral bargaining.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Neither Korea or China are perfect, but they both survived. Was Kim Il Sung a real ideological communist or just an opportunist? He's dead, so we can't ask him, but living standards in the North were higher than in the South under his rule, there was free healthcare. Private capital still seems to have little power in North Korea, and the power of capital is curtailed in China as well. Whether or not they can be called socialist is up for debate, but they're certainly closer to socialism than any Western democracies.

    As far as democracy goes, we'll take China as an example. You wouldn't call them a democracy, but they're much more responsive to the needs and interests of the people than any western democracy. What's better, a single-party state that acts in the interests of the people, or a democratic state that completely ignores them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    but they’re certainly closer to socialism than any Western democracies.

    How is a state where workers can't organize more socialist than one where workers can?

    but they’re much more responsive to the needs and interests of the people than any western democracy

    Lol, there is no public healthcare, no free childcare, you have to pay to go to high school, no unions, I don't see how you can claim they are more responsive to people's needs than states that y-know respond to people's needs?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    In a socialist state like China before Dengism or the USSR, how would unions work? Under capitalism unions are fantastic, but if you have a socialist economy, an independent union is essentially bargaining with all of society. A union with a lot of leverage, such as dockworkers, could extract inordinate concessions from the rest of society, not the capitalists. They would become a resented labour aristocracy. Now, I don't think this holds in post-Deng China, but from my understanding there is a fair amount of labour organizing going on there. For instance, a few years ago an American business owner owed a bunch of back pay to his Chinese employees, and they suspected he was about to lay everyone off and close the factory without paying them, so they took his ass captive. They trapped him in his office and the police didn't raise a finger to free him. Fat chance in hell that you'd see that in any western country.

    As for public healthcare, there is, it's just not completely free. The cost is very low, however, and the same goes for high shool. They just recently expanded affordable public childcare as well. Their recent anti-poverty program was also very successful.

    To take a step back, I think you aren't correctly understanding why western countries have/had a social safety net and toleration of unions. A lot of it was due to the struggle of the domestic labour movement, yes, but a big part of it was also the threat of the Soviet Union - with a prominent alternative to capitalism, they had extra incentive to keep the domestic working class placated. In short, they bought us off by sharing some of the spoils of imperialism. However, with falling rates of profit and the continual drive to increase profit, they've been progressively dialing it back in successive rounds of austerity, while letting wages stagnate compared to the cost of living. These social programs are only going to degrade and be dismantled over time.

    How is this distinguished from post-Deng China? On one hand, China does not have a global empire to extract profits from, so the steadily increasing standard of living for their working class is a result of their successful economic program rather than them paying off the working class with a share of the plunder. The increase has not been equal, with the standard of living in cities increasing more rapidly than in rural areas, and with the bourgeoisie getting richer faster than the proletariat, but it is nevertheless a general increase across all of society, while the western pseudo-democracies are seeing exponential enrichment for the ruling class combined with stagnation in the middle and worsening conditions for the working class.

    The main reason, however, is that capital is not in control of China. Capital is allowed to exist, and has a seat at the table, but it is constrained by the state. If capitalists cross certain lines, if they get too corrupt, act against the national interest, or act egregiously against the interests of society, they are dealt with very harshly, up to and including execution. Jack Ma got too big for his britches and thought he could freely criticize the state banks and financial regulators, claiming that they were stifling innovation. The state made it quite clear who was in charge, and Ma disappeared from public life for about 6 months. China has billionaires, yes, but they keep them on a fairly tight leash, and they routinely execute them.

    Once again, they aren't perfect and I have plenty of criticisms, but they're doing so much better than any western country, where capital is unconstrained, operates with impunity, and is stripping the copper wire from the walls to chase profits. It's basically incomparable. Chinese people, having seen concrete and rapid increases to their standard of living, are optimistic hopeful for the future, while we in the west see only doom and worsening conditions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    how would unions work?

    They would represent workers, you should look into actual communist theory if you don't understand the point of unions.

    if you have a socialist economy, an independent union is essentially bargaining with all of society.

    Yes, to think that's a bad thing is insane. Do you oppose public sector unions too? Fucking teachers are essentially bargaining with all of society do you think that's bad?

    Also all unions are bargaining with society, the capitalists are extracting profit but they are also part of the market and some costs/conditions will be passed on to the rest of society.

    Plus docks in most of the world are publicly owned! Do you oppose the ILWU refusing to unload Israeli ships because they are holding the rest of society hostage.

    how would unions work?

    Also there was literally a model for this in the USSR before Lenin crushed them, the SOVIETS, there are a bunch of other models too.

    Unions are even useful in cooperatives, maybe spend less time reading theory and more time helping workers organize and you'd realize how dumb it is to think that workers (who are a part of society) are evil and selfish.

    I mean FFS you're LARPing as a communist, yet you think workers are too selfish and evil to run society, WTF is wrong with you?

    but from my understanding there is a fair amount of labour organizing going on there.

    Yeah illegal organizing done in secret like every other authoritarian regime, worse than in social democracies. Also from my understanding much of the organizing is done amongst immigrant communities who are treated worse and often have their passports held in conditions on par with UAE & Saudi Arabia.

    They trapped him in his office and the police didn’t raise a finger to free him. Fat chance in hell that you’d see that in any western country.

    Firstly, look into the French & Korean Labor movements. But secondly that doesn't mean shit, a king can allow pedants to kill a corrupt Lord/Sheriff that doesn't make him a socialist.

    As for public healthcare, there is, it’s just not completely free. The cost is very low, however, and the same goes for high shool. They just recently expanded affordable public childcare as well. Their recent anti-poverty program was also very successful.

    Ridiculous excuse, you are claiming China is more socialist than social democracies where workers get free access to healthcare & education, which are part of the means of social reproduction, how is it more socialist for workers to have less control over the means of production?

    A lot of it was due to the struggle of the domestic labour movement, yes, but a big part of it was also the threat of the Soviet Union

    Lol, sorry you can't be serious, labor unions predate the USSR and while the USSR violently crushed labor organizing within it's borders, the Russian revolution was led by labor (who then stupidly stayed in the war and were replaced by the Bolsheviks)

    On one hand, China does not have a global empire to extract profits from

    Lol, economic extraction bad when US does it, good when China does it 🤦‍♂️

    I'm sorry but defending China as socialist because the state is doing well at developmentaliam, is dumb, Indian is doing a lot of terrible developmentalism, that doesn't make it socialist.

    The main reason, however, is that capital is not in control of China. Capital is allowed to exist, and has a seat at the table, but it is constrained by the state. If capitalists cross certain lines, if they get too corrupt, act against the national interest, or act egregiously against the interests of society, they are dealt with very harshly, up to and including execution.

    You're describing a social democracy, except in a well run system you don't need executions to scare people into compliance.

    they’re doing so much better than any western country, where capital is unconstrained,

    By what metric?

    Also capital isn't unconstrained in social democracies, it's funny that you stealman China as if workers hold any real power, but strawman social democracies where workers actually do.

    Sorry but if you think you can have a socialist state without worker control of the means of production, you're delusional to the point of making something definitionally impossible and thinking you've made a point, it's like arguing with a fundamentalist Christian who just says "God has a plan" when confronted with kids with bone cancer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Social democracy? What social democracy? First things first, there is no social democracy in the west, the last vestiges are in the process of being swept away. You can expect more austerity from here on. It's a moot point anyway, because almost all of the social democracies were (and are, to the extent that social democracy still exists) in the imperialist bloc and complicit in the exploitation and domination of the third world.

    Once again, I didn't say that China was definitively socialist, I said that they were closer to it than the west. The question is whether the Dengist liberalization was an NEP-style strategic retreat with the aim of developing and eventually progressing to socialism, or if they're just developmentalist social democrats. Either way, they're better than any given western country (of which even the most social democratic are imperialist running dogs).

    So, in terms of the scoreboard, marxism-leninism has achieved multiple socialist states that bettered the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and then either collapsed or liberalized into a kind of developmentalist quasi social democracy (which is nevertheless better than liberal democracy), and then you also have Cuba which still manages to hold on, barely, under overwhelming pressure, and has been forced to liberalize by circumstance. Not great, but it could be a lot worse, and there were some real triumphs.

    Anarchism, or libertarian socialism, or what have you, has managed a few temporary statelets and has never been able to seriously oppose capitalist imperialism. The biggest difference is in mentality - the Anarchist aversion to authority and centralization means that they aren't capable of acting effectively in a wartime enviroment. You have to realize that any revolutionary movment that succeeds will be an immediate target for every reactionary power, and that survival will require authoritarian measures to be taken. It's a simple fact, in wartime you do not have the luxury of absolute freedom. Anyone who makes concrete gains for the working class will have to defend them.

    As an aside, I think the real test will come once American hegemony has fully collapsed, which thankfully seems to be coming sooner than later. China's treatment of the rest of the world once they're the premier world power will be the best metric to judge them by.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    anarchism and ML are opposing ideology. Why anarchist need support of ML states to survive?

    ML state literally won biggest war of human history, built a country from ground up that rivaled and stalled most powerful countries in history, made humongous gains in human development like literacy, life expectancy, women rights, science, tech, literature, sports and much more for the while it existed.

    Anarchist should do their own work (even tho I know anarchism is a moralist ideology not scientific so it wont work and wont change lives of people).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Lol, it's kind of sad that MLs, cling to the glory of developmentalism that came from overthrowing fuedal regimes (which pretty much any regime that overthrows fuedalism sees), instead of actually improving worker power in the decades during which the authoritarian regimes you simp for actually existed.

    ML state literally won biggest war of human history

    A war that would have been much quicker if the MLs hadn't killed all their best generals and failed to invade Finland 🤣 or if Stalin wasn't buddies with Hitler because it allowed the USSR to invade Poland.

    And also a war that wouldn't have been won without enormous help from peaky liberals.

    built a country from ground up that rivaled and stalled most powerful countries in history

    Yeah just pretend Russia wasn't a great power before the US even existed because it makes the USSR look better and you wonder why everyone always laughs at MLs ridiculously twisted version of history.

    Anarchist should do their own work

    Anarchists did, only to be shot in the back by MLs, Spain, Korea, Ukraine, always the same, anarchists fight for freedom alongside so called "communists" only for the communists to turn on them before defeating the racists.

    not scientific

    LMFAO how many times does the immortal science of MLism have to fail to progress beyond creating authoritarian shitholes, before you scientifically conclude that it's a failed approach?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    "WhICH any regime that throws feudalism sees" Yeah except 90% of the global south

    1. You dont know if it would be quicker or not, germany had been preparing for that war for decades. And Stalin wasnt buddies with Hitler, stop lying. USSR wouldve won regardless of western support.
    2. Russia was noweher close to as prosperous and as untouched by war as USA. Soviets had to face 2 imperial wars and had to industrialize twice, america however was very safe.
    3. Well I am sorry for that hope you guys learnt your lesson and treat MLs your enemy.\
    4. ML states have done alot of progress
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Haha I'd never heard that take before. I'm curious about two things. 1) How do you define MLs? 2) What would real socialism entail? I'm guessing with those answers I should have a good idea what you're talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (6 children)
    1. Anyone who self-identifies as an ML, such as the part mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation

    2. Workers being in control of the means of production, like actually not in some "the party represents the workers BS".

    • cooperatives & unions control job sites - real unions not yellow unions
    • workers control the economy via some real mechanism not 1 party elections with per-determined outcomes (Could be state-less - e.g Anarchy, could be state-full e.g some form of democratic socialism, will probably be a mix of both)
    • the people that work farms control them and are not forced to give back the farms to capitalists like the USSR did in Spain.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    Hell yeah💪. I personally agree with how you define socialism. I'm a reddit refugee lol. They are all LMs and Stalinists over there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    their definition of socialism is just market socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    A communist coup in Moscow would be a bit on the nose, but I’d allow it

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Ill pencil it in for early October

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Julian or Gregorian calendar? I want to get this right this time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    Maybe, but I don't think that the conditions are nearly as bad as they were in 1917. They're obviously worse than they would have been had Russia not entered into the war, but the collapse in 1917 was due to urban food shortages. I don't mean "luxury X is unavailable", but that people couldn't get staple food to survive because of demands of the war.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/russias-february-revolution-was-led-women-march-180962218/

    Like the French Revolution in 1789, a bread shortage in the capital precipitated unrest. After long shifts in the factories, female factory workers stood in bread lines alongside other women including domestic servants, housewives and soldiers’ widows. In these bread lines, news and rumors about planned rationing spread. When Saint Petersburg municipal authorities announced on March 4 that rationing would begin ten days later, there was widespread panic; bakeries were sacked, their windows broken and supplies stolen.

    As he had throughout the previous months, Nicholas once again underestimated the extent of the unrest and again departed for military headquarters more than 400 miles away in Mogliev, which is now in Belarus, against the advice of his ministers. In the czar’s mind, leadership of the military took precedence during wartime, and he was concerned by the mass desertions occurring in the aftermath of munitions shortages and defeats at the hands of the Germans.

    Though in past moments of revolutionary sentiment, the military had stood by its czar, by 1917, the armed force was demoralized and sympathetic to the demonstrators’ cause. The presence of large groups of women among the demonstrators made soldiers particularly reluctant to fire on the crowds. When the soldiers joined the demonstrators, as opposed to firing upon them, the end of the Romanov dynasty was near.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/ztyk87h/revision/5

    There was a severe lack of food in Moscow and, in 1917, Petrograd only received half of the grain required to feed its citizens.

    Now, okay. It's possible that standards for political support are different, that the bar has changed. But the public in Russia of 2026


    though it may be in a worse state than Russia of 2020 due to resources consumed by the war


    is also not experiencing the degree of deprivation of Russia of 1917.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    That is definitely true, but 21st century examples of revolution don't necessarily need a food shortage to begin (Maidan, Nepal, etc.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    It’s true. Looking back on revolutions, starvation is a common cause. What we haven’t seen is a relatively better off population revolt because their conditions got notably worse, from pretty good to pretty bad but not close to starvation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Isn't that party in Russia super pro-government? Essentially controlled oposition?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Warns of the Risk of a Revolution in Russia

    Isn't it, like, his job to make this happen?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    It'd be nice is Russia can take back itself from that dick-tater... Get rid of all of Putin's ilk, elect a decent person as president., power wash the stench away, peace talks with their neighbors, condemnation of the US Pedo Party. All that good stuff.

    Highly doubt it will happen.

    Damn, I want that for the US!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Take it back to what, though? The 1990s? I guess that’d be an improvement. What they really need is progress. Is there any kind of progressive movement in Russia?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    It would not be an improvement - do you have any idea how bad the 1990s were in Russia?

    There's a reason that Putin has high support, and it's not all manufactured. It's that the Yeltsin shock therapy was really traumatic - largest peacetime drop in life expectancy in recorded history.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago

    Simpsons did it

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago

    Oh well. As a certain ballistic missile submarine Captain once observed: A revolution every now and again, is a healthy thing.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Oh, soviet union 2. Now with more soviets.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Soviet Union 2: Electric Bogaloo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Russian jokes still write themselves

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    Good wipe Putin off the map

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago
    [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    I support it. I have no love for the early USSR, but I see its fall as a historical tragedy

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    We’re gonna see that in the US before we see it in Russia. At least Russians have free education and free healthcare mandated by their constitution.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Right after the November elections. Hold out just a little longer guys and you will get your pound of flesh. We hit them all at the same time.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (10 children)

    Communism sucks but even that would be better than Putin.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    All communism?

    Soviet communism was a disaster. Chinese communism works but is authoritarian. Israeli kibbutzes are pretty-much communism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    All communism?

    Yeah, seems so.

    Chinese communism works but is authoritarian.

    From the POV of a communist I'm sure there's a lot more in chinese communism to critique than just the authoritarianism. Like the existence of a billionaire class, private ownership of means of production, lack of independent labor unions, pretty high income inequality, market economy, and pretty western-looking consumerism. I mean it's pretty much like USA if USA only had one political party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    I'm not advocating for the Chinese approach or for communism at all. My point about China is that it has improved living standards (pretty spectacularly) while others have failed.

    If I could choose anything it would be like scandi-social-democracy, but with stronger controls on corporate and personal greed. I'd make hoarding wealth while others suffer socially unnaceptable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is just capitalism with extra steps and a red paint job.

    If you're talking about the Mao Zedong era, that was also a disaster but at least they did try to run the country according to communist principles. They were just very bad at it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    Show the rest of the graph please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • Mmm ... no. No, they just don't do that sort of thing in Russia.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    He is such a rat

    Russian people, its time for another red october, make lenin alive again!

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago

    dumb garbage

  • source