all 14 comments

[–]SJCringe 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I wouldn’t even call it communism. Look at that post about the language rules for those American healthcare workers - there was a big show about what words they’re banning, but those patients are still paying out the ass for their treatment. That sums up these culture dramas in general.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think it's closer to Maoism. The establishment is wholly evil and must be completely destroyed. Reality is retarded, stupidity is smart.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is Maoism not a type of Communism though? Doesn’t it label itself as that? What’s the real difference anyways between a traditional Marxist-Leninist Communist and a Maoist?

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

First you've got Marx and his economic theory. I suggest you read it along with the communist manifesto. I don't agree with all of it nor do I think at all his idea of the inevitable revolution of the proletariat is at all in line with reality, but it's a very influential work in economic theory and has driven revolution in the 20th century and beyond, you do yourself no favors by not familiarizing yourself with it as most Americans are anemic to do following a very successful propoganda campaign in the 1950's and later.

The entire issue is essentially too broad and complicated to distill perfectly into a cliff notes version but I'll attempt to hit the main differences.

Marxism essentially postulates that materialism, as opposed to spiritualism, is the primary motivating force in society. And that the materialistic nature of society is organized according to the economic class hierarchy. Rather than by racial or religious affiliations. While a king may claim his right to rule is derived by god, in reality his right to rule is derived from his ability to collect taxes and pay off those under him who protect him and maintain his authority through the threat of force. This is somewhat applicable to most historical societies however Marx ideas are very much referring to the new post industrial revolution society where capitalists were essentially usurping the positions of power from the previously noble and royal classes to become the new upper class.

Communism on the other hand is derived from Marxism, as Marx was certainly party to writing the Communist manifesto. However communism it self does seek the ultimate dismantling of the capitalistic system with the ultimate dictatorship of the proletariat as it's ultimate goal, this is very much an unrealistic and quite unachievable ideal that has never been attempted successfully. Apart from Marxism where we can say it describes the class distribution and economic dynamics of modern post industrial society (or at least it did at the time of Marx) and fairly points out that the ultimate source of economic power does lie with the proletariat, those at the bottom who provide labor, for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, the middle and upper class urban elite who are able to understand and mange labor without producing any material benefit themselves, full on communist ideology calls for the abolishment of this system and is more utopian rather than discriptive in nature.

Maoism, Lenism, Castroism, Stalinism, Ho Chi-Minh Vietnamese Communism, Juche, all refer to various leaders interpretations of Marxism used by revolutionary leaders as they applied it to their own country, all deviate from pure communist theory as they cannot exist outside the economic reality of life, and as such become preyed by many of the same problems and corruption that exist in the capitalistic system, namely the human desire for power at it's core, covered most eloquently by famous socialist author Orwell.

Maoism specifically was driven by students that had become increasingly discouraged at the republican Chinese government and called upon their dissent to totally and utterly wreak havok on any traditional Chinese cultural elements or institutions, with almost religious fever towards the ultimate raising of the self over the culture in a reversal of traditional Chinese cultural paradigm, viewing this from the purely Marxist lense, it served as Mao's vehicle for the deconstruction of the existing power structures, which naturally he replaced with his own, and a new ruling class of communist emerged after tossing out the previous capitalist ruling class, and the new ruling class of communists then became capitalists as they are now. Thereby failing to really be communist in it's pure form. Despite taking the trappings and language of the communists.

How it's similar to the modern situation in the west has to do with the college students total disdain and constant attacks of any and all institutions and traditional beliefs as evil. It is very similar to cultural revolutionary attitudes in post revolution China.

One of the more humorous anecdotes of that time.

Replace making posters with posting on Twitter and changing the word bousgeoisie to MAGA or BLM and you'd be forgiven for believing that article was describing modern western culture.

[–]FourteenDigitz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Marxist-Leninism isn’t “traditional” Communism, and Maoism is just Mao’s interpretation of Marxist-Leninism. The works of Marx and Engels are the “traditional” Communism theory; Marxist-Leninism was the Eastern European application of it in the early 20th century. Western Socialists and Communists were disavowing Marxist-Leninism avidly in the 20s and beyond up until the Red Scare erased the movement from the face of the US and its allies.

[–]AkbarZip 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The ideology that is propelling this insanity of wokeness/cancel culture/"marginalized groups" is critical theory, which is a Neo-Marxist theory. It basically takes Marx's theory of labor relations (between employers and workers or labor and capital) and interposes it only various identity groups. Its interposing Marxist economic theory with an uneven power balance between workers and their bosses onto identity groups, so everyone is either oppressed or oppressor based on their sex/race/ethnicity. I'd say the best term for it is Neo-Marxism.

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is true, though the one difference is that this form, rather than make communism/cultural Marxism happen, may have been done to KEEP those things from taking hold.

For communism to actually succeed, it has to be something where everyone is on the same page. In communism, if one person- literally only one person in the whole wide world- decides to act in their own best interests and get greedy, then the whole thing falls apart. Either you have to give them what they want for the greater good (and have everyone else say "why does THAT asshole get his way? I want as much as he got- hell, I deserve MORE than what he got because he was a dick and I played by the rules!" and you guarantee you'll run out of enough to go around), or you kill the greedy person and become a totalitarian government who has an excuse to kill anyone they dislike.

Communism needs everyone to play ball...and secretly, since most people are genuinely good and see the issue, the majority of the world would be willing to play ball on paper.

The people who have power now hate that. And they know that if the people who don't have power overtook them, they wouldn't have a chance.

Cultural Marxism, as such, is less about making communism happen and more about dividing the world into groups so that they can conquer them- each time saying to the groups "no, no, we're on your side. If it was up to us, you'd have this power- but THEY won't let us. They aren't as poor as you- they're richer than us and they pretend to be poor because they get off watching your pain. Why, if they were out of the picture, we could give you what you want!", and then divide those groups up, and divide those, until you have everyone in the world at everyone else's throats.

Never forget, the people in charge want the world to be poor, stupid, and bigots. They want you poor enough to do whatever they say just to survive, they want you stupid enough to believe their lies, and they want you bigoted enough you'd be happier seeing the group you're bigoted against suffer a little bit more than you do than you would by getting what you need to live.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you want to learn more about this, visit James Lindsay has been doing stellar work in this field, reading all the books so you don't have to, and telling you what you need to know. He's on Youtube at and his channel is great. He used to be pretty bad about two hour lectures, but now he does 10-20 minute briefs which are more digestible. Don't get me wrong, the two hour talks are great and very thorough. Try them if you can, this man can quote chapter and verse of why we're in the mess we're in. More importantly, he explains how to fight them.

[–]Neo_Shadow_Lurker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I could open with a paragraph elaborating about how this shit isn't actual marxism/communism and how people in the US have used this word inappropriately to an exhaustive degree on recent history, but this is a discussion for another time.

This, on the other hand, is more interesting:

To be honest, I would problematize (not the socmed meaning) “power imbalances” as well.

How I see it talked about whenever it’s brought up to shut down some kind of interpersonal relationship, there’s no possible and practical way to have a completely equal dynamic.

The matter here is balance, not complete equivalence.

A 50 year old dating a 17 year old would be considered ludicrous by 99% of people because of the huge difference in the power dynamics between both people.

Most 50 year olds have jobs, stable lives and a vault of experiences which puts them on a whole other level than a 17 year old, most of which are still "getting out of diapers" on most matters related to adult life.

Pointing out that there's no way for two people to have the exact same life experiences, even if they're the same age, doesn't deny or erase the gap of power on the example above, or make a relationship like that ethical or good.

That's why every single case of unequal power dynamics must be analyzed based on its own merits, otherwise we as a society can go to very dark places very fast.

(women are always overpowered by men, right? Non-white people are always overpowered by white people in the West, right? Mentally ill and neurodivergent and disabled people are always at a disadvantage compared to abled neurotypicals, right? Someone born into money is inherently different from someone who struggles economically, and these people will never be able to genuinely connect and care about each other, right? Someone older will always overpower the younger socially, right? etc.).

Try to eliminate the word "always" of these sentences. After doing that, now answer: are they untrue?

The problem with the argument made in the text is that it uses the same rhetorical trick gender grifters do: "you see, some people are born intersex, so biological sex doesn't exist!"

Sound familiar, doesn't it?!

We tend to use generalizations to access reality for a reason.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The point is are power differentials, even big ones, automatically bad?

The biggest problem with huge power differentials is the issue of blurred consent, but once you can establish both parties are fully enthusiastically consenting adults (and the concept of “adult” itself varies between cultures so even that’s not perfect) why is power automatically deemed as this evil boogeyman that will always inevitably turn abusive/exploitative?

That’s already buying into bullshit Marxist mindsets about the inherent moral value of “power” - which is a nebulous concept that can’t be objectively measured one way or the other anyways.

This exact mentality is what’s spawned the bullshit of terms such as “White Privilege” or “Microaggressions.”

[–]Neo_Shadow_Lurker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The biggest problem with huge power differentials is the issue of blurred consent, but once you can establish both parties are fully enthusiastically consenting adults (and the concept of “adult” itself varies between cultures so even that’s not perfect) why is power automatically deemed as this evil boogeyman that will always inevitably turn abusive/exploitative?

Yes, specially when we are talking about interpersonal relationships.

A big difference in power comes with coersion.

Back to our example: if the 50 year old becomes the sole breadwinner in the relationship, then the 17 year old will be compelled to stay with them even if they don't want to. The thing gets even complicated if we include pregnancy in the mix.

That’s already buying into bullshit Marxist mindsets about the inherent moral value of “power”

If power has no inherent value, then why people always seek it?

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If power has no inherent value, then why people always seek it?

It has value but that doesn’t automatically make it this irredeemable evil thing that must either always be completely eliminated or avoided. (As the woketards/commies attempt to)

Lots of cultures all around the world venerate and respect power and never dare to question it, like Eastern countries such as Japan and South Korea, and look how much better their society is functioning by every measurable metric imaginable.

This lack of respect and/or dismantlement of basic hierarchy and authority is the prime root of wokeism and is the reason why the West (or at least America) has devolved into this clown world, people lack shame and respect and have gotten too brazen.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Power is a tool that can either be used for good or evil, however using power for evil is the winning move.

Society A. Utopian Communism You produce one food. I produce one food. We both are equal in every way, there is no power imbalance.

Society B. Total Anarchy.

You produce one food. I have a gun and produce no food.

I kill you and eat your food. Society collapses because nobody is making food. Everyone dies.

Society C Benevolent Socialism.

You produce one food. I have a gun and produce no food. I use the gun to protect against predators. Your food production increases. You share your food with me.

Society D Unrestricted Authoritarian Capitalism

You produce one food. I have a gun and produce no food. I use the gun to take half of your food. Then use the gun to take food from society A with no guns. Now I have three food. I use the extra food to get more guns, take over more societies.

Using power for evil is the winning move. Which is why balance of power is important in any sustainable polite and peaceful society.

A game only works and is only fun if there are rules and they are enforced. In a game of chess if I care not for you or your feelings, the winning move is to simply punch you in the face and declare myself victor. Without the structure of a society and power restrictions to keep me in check, the winners are the most violent and destructive and that drags us as a species down to the level of the animals.

Authority and respect for it is important. But it's about keeping power balanced. The king rules with total authority but still derived his power from the people he rules. If he abuses his power and doesn't fulfill his responsibilities to his people he will be overthrown.

The benefit of democracy is that we can do this without violence.

[–]On_WheelsWe need to secure the existence of the gay race 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I won't say this is right or wrong, because I know nothing about politics. But what does this have to do with stupidity posted on Tumblr or Twitter?