New Atheism is Islamophobic cancer that justifies imperialist aggression in the Middle East.

Fighting the Nazis was one of the few based things that Canada, Britain, France, and the USA have done.

This is basically astrology for unconfident men.

Vietnam: Scare the imperialists, give them PTSD, and make them too afraid to come back.

Legit the ideology of conservatives, libertarians, and ancaps.

Those guys literally hate communism more than fascism.

Rightists be like: “Socialism is whatever I don’t like”

I’m an anarchist.

Makes sense that an anarchist would unironically believe this.

Lenin coined the term state capitalism,

It is true that Lenin considered his own experiment state capitalist, this was referring to the New Economic Policy he set up. This, however, was meant to pave the way for a more advanced form of socialism. In other words, it was taking one step back to take two steps forward.

Why was this done? Socialism requires an industrialized society. Tsarist Russia was barely this, it was mostly a semi-feudal, agrarian nation. How do you get industrialization? Capitalism. Many socialists in Russia at the time agreed that their country was not ready for socialism and needed a period of capitalism in order to develop the country.

This isn’t some random new thing they came up with, this is basic Marxism. You don’t go to a socialist or communist society instantly, it gradually develops and it will have traits of previous modes of production for a while.

In other words, the NEP was put in place in order to help develop the country. Otherwise, they could not have a fully socialist society without most of the population remaining in poverty. Even with the capitalist mode of production in place, the state remained a significant part of the economy, millions of people were taught to read and write, they were guaranteed employment, they had access to healthcare, and many other things that would not be possible in a fully capitalist society.

replacing private ownership of the means with a new class hierarchy in the form of an inequitable and unjust bureaucratic state apparatus

The Soviet state was structured around the Soviets, or worker’s councils, where workers would vote for delegates to represent them in regional councils, who would vote for representatives in national councils, including the highest council: the Supreme Soviet. This council had the supreme legislative power in the country, not any leader or party. This meant that the state apparatus that you are talking about was in the control of none other than the working people themselves. How inequitable and unjust was that?

For more information, I would recommend reading Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.

No state has ever liberated the working class.

How is giving the working class supreme political power not liberating them? This supreme political power was used to feed, educate, employ, house, and take care of the working people. How many anarchist societies have achieved that?

The libs are mad already it seems.

Ah yes, because all of the leaders of socialist nations were just capitalists in disguise and they started revolutions for their own gain rather than the people’s.

This is what liberals believe, not socialists. Get real.

This is the most ironic and hilarious post from PragerU that I have ever seen. You just cannot imagine that they of all people would say that.

BRO WHY ARE THERE 600+ COMMENTS HERE, I’VE NEVER SEEN THIS EVER

Go home, liberal, and take your horseshoe theory pseudoscience with you.

The emoji reads “us-foreign-policy”. Accurate as hell.

China is fundamentally capitalist.

Read what rjs001 put.

China just has a more oppressive government.

Who told you this? Radio Free Asia? The Western media slanders China and many other countries all the time. In reality, the Chinese government is one of the most democratic in the world. Also, apparently a government which is trusted by 89% of their people, according to a WESTERN source, is oppressive. Name any recent police killings of unarmed people by Chinese police. Name any instances of American police doing the same thing.

Name how many children China has bombed to death since 1949. Name how many children the United States has bombed to death just from that time period to today.

In my ideal communist world

We don’t live in an ideal world, we never will live in an ideal world, we have to live in reality. We have to study the conditions of reality and determine what is the best society we can make considering these conditions. We can’t just try to create a society based on what we feel is best.

but it is overshadowed by the authoritarian nature of government.

Electing your own leaders is pretty authoritarian, isn’t it? Also, read the “China just has a more oppressive government” part again.

there would be little state interference between small communes of no more than 300 people.

Realistically, how would such a society function? Why can’t we still have big cities which require the work of millions of people every day just to prosper? How are we even going to turn these big cities into small communes anyway? How are you going to get people on board with the idea in the first place? How will these communes work with each other? What would happen if some of these communes decide not to work with any other commune? What would happen if some of these communes produced essential goods such as insulin, which diabetic people need to not die. If there is no state or governance of any kind to prevent this from happening, how can it be prevented?

but would your ideal communist world be like China, my scenario, or something else entirely?

It would not look like any of those because, again, we do not live in an ideal world, and we are not even certain what a communist world would look like. What we do know is that it would not look like China, because class distinction would have gone away which would cause the state to lose its function and thus wither away. It would not look like your scenario either because the socialist state would focus on centralizing, not decentralizing the means of production. This, the socialization of the means of production, is what the process of socialism looks like. The idea of there being “small communes of no more than 300 people” would most likely only exist in the minds of some people and not in reality. Entire cities would not be divided between a bunch of small communes, they would be united as that is the most realistic way to create an organized society which allows people to have access to necessities and luxuries that such a society produces. To get to a moneyless, stateless, classless society, we cannot just try to instantly create it, as we live in a world where the capitalist state will just come in and take that over. We will need a state that will fight against the capitalist class and help us develop a centralized, socialist society. Otherwise, our “communist” society would not look like communism, it would look like neo-feudalism.

“It WaSn’T rEaL sOcIaLiSm!1!1!1!”

Massive respect to the Chinese and Korean troops who fought for true freedom!

I tried to upload an image but it wouldn’t let me. Let me try to fix that.

It basically was a screenshot of a twitter post asking for a pride flag of the unemployed and another guy replied with an anprim flag.

For some odd reason, I cannot delete this post because now it is pointless.

Yeah, the downvotes have really changed me, man. It made me realize that I’m just a red fascist and that communism doesn’t work.

Now I am a proud supporter of democracy and freedom. AOC is the best candidate, she’s a believer in true, democratic socialism and not evil authoritarianism. Let’s vote for AOC so she can give Americans free college and healthcare while Syrian children get bombed by a woman instead of a man!

Posted on here some time back about how I had this argument with this one “Marxist” kid who probably believes all the stuff on here, he literally said Lenin (probably the least “authoritarian” Soviet leader minus Gorbachev) was an authoritarian, and that the Soviets (along with literally every other ruling/former ruling communist party since they were just like them) were basically Nazis who lied about being socialist to get power, to the point where he even called me a Nazi, along with unironically saying the horseshoe theory was true because “MLs are far-right.”

It annoys me whenever liberals try to pretend that they are leftists when they actively antagonize actual leftists. COINTELPRO and its consequences have been a disaster for the western left.

Marxism-Leninism is an ideology that is followed by a minimum of one hundred million people (add up all the members of the ruling communist parties worldwide to see how I got that number), and that doesn’t even count all the sympathizers and non-party members which is probably a billion or two. Yet apparently every single one of them is just lying about being socialist just so they can seize power and be authoritarians. The Nazis actively hated Marxism and stated that they were trying to take socialism from the socialists, while Marxist-Leninists quoted Marx and Engels all the time in their writings and talked about how they would achieve a socialist society.

The idea that Marxist-Leninists are all just lying authoritarians is something I find utterly ridiculous and laughable. You have to think outside of reality in order to believe that claim.

What side is this picture even supposed to be on?