Time for the 20-year-old authorities on life under the USSR to come out
Warsaw Pact, but yeah. It’s astounding how eagerly some people will lick boots if they’re painted red.
I’m referring to people who never actually lived in a communist state but claim to have witnessed first-hand all the anti-communist propaganda they’ve swallowed
… yeah, Ceausescu’s brutality was definitely Westoid propaganda. You caught us.
What are you even talking about?
All I’m doing is predicting we’ll have someone drop in with the “oh but you never lived it like I did” bit, only to be revealed as too young to have had any meaningful life experience under the government they’re criticizing. It happens so often in threads like this it’s basically a trope.
What are you even talking about?
I’m just referring to the inevitable denial and downplaying of the brutality of dictators by tankies claiming it’s all anti-Communist propaganda.
Damn, didn’t even take a full minute after I posted this for you to start licking boots. Yikes.
“Tankie” is to libs what “woke” is to conservatives
Yikes.
Lmao I’m supposed to take this asshlole’s understanding of history seriously
[retracted by author]
No, I was referring to 20 year-old people as well. The difference is, they were talking about 20 year-olds who falsely claim experience in the old Soviet bloc, and I initially interpreted it as 20 year-olds who glamorize life in the old Soviet bloc against all evidence.
Hooo boy that trigger discipline 😬😬😬
Considering he means to kill someone, it’s sufficient trigger discipline I believe.
That AK looks tiny! Like those plastic kid toys…
Anyone want to do the math and tell us how tall this guy is?
Is that an AK-74 with a folding stock? That’s right, I played CoD bitches
A lot of tankie seething ITT, here’s a pic of Cauceascu getting BTFO’d for you to take home.
Very democratic, a military coup under direct orders from the State Department overthrowing socialism in Romania and killing/imprisoning former Communist Party members
I doubt you have ever spoken to a Romanian about Ceausescu, nowadays Romania has a massive emigration and unemployment issue, with highly corrupt, bureaucratic parties subversant to Western interests, with none of the social security benefits socialism offered.
heres a movie about it with real footage, more of a documentary https://youtu.be/sEZikLuqt68 narrated in english
a lot of romanians nowadays think it was a state-sponsored attack by the americans, i don’t know what to say but i sure know life is at least a bit better for most people, and for independent people like myself the much increased freedom is invaluable. fuck commies, any flavor of communism is cancer and should be eradicated
it’s so funny that people actually think the USSR was communist. (spoiler: they weren’t)
Commies already downvoting. Typical.
Why indeed would communists downvote an “anti-communist fighter”? Truly a mystery for the ages!
People are going to post Félix Rodríguez hagiographies next and then throw a hissy fit if they don’t get 100% positive karma.
Agatha Christie fans upvoting, typical
Tankies try not to support a brutal and massively corrupt dictator who managed to turn the proletariat against him challenge (NEVER BEEN DONE)
brutal and massively corrupt dictator who managed to turn the proletariat against him challenge
Who are you talking about?
… Ceausescu. Who else was dictator of Romania in 1989?
Ion Iliescu?
Wasn’t dictator, and didn’t come into any significant influence until the last week and a half of 1989.
Wasn’t dictator
Doubt.jpg
the guy who decided that striking workers should be ground under tanks, the origin of tankies
OP said they’re talking about Ceausescu, and I can’t find information about him being involved in the Hungarian Counterrevolution of 1956.
By counterrevolution do you mean the people rising up against an oppressive ruling class that held their country?
Counterrevolution
Big yikes.
It looks like people have forgotten what communism actually is in just 3 decades…
Like actual communism ever existed. What we got were authoritarian dictators that basically ran a kleptocracy and slapped a “communist” or “socialist” label on it. Facets that looked like the labels were lip service or token at best.
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated.
— Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method
“Dr. King’s policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.”
— Kwame Ture
The US supported its economic interests first, its ideals a distant second. If you couldn’t support the former you wouldn’t have a hope, and you didn’t understand the US.
supported
proceeds to check news to see if the U.S. has just been dissolved
Yeah, the crimes of the U.S. are always spoken of as history, despite no one ever being held accountable and the existence of a clear throughline from the people and institutions of decades ago to those of today (shit, sometimes it’s the exact same people!).
Damn.
No, we had exceptional communism implementation.
you’re NEVER going to get “actual communism” because it’s an impossible utopian ideology. here’s my ideology: everyone becomes a millionaire and drives lambos and fucks 10/10s every day, no poor people, no orphans, no more suffering
communism comes from a lack of knowledge of basic economic principles that are always valid no matter the ideology
It’s a great idea in theory, the problem is for every karl marx you’ve got 20 stalin wannabes and 200 gavrillo princeps
Human history is littered with self interested strongmen who are willing to sacrifice those who disagree with them in their climb to power. More so, there are those who aid and abet them - and we get to experience that in the US now - with reasons varying from prejudice to tribalism to misplaced revenge.
Not a communist, but like you’ve ever known lol.
It’s a pretty big hint you don’t live in commie-topia when the glorious leader is feeding orphans blood transfusions from his mega-palace while Nixon assures everyone he’s one of the good ones.
the glorious leader is feeding orphans blood transfusions from his mega-palace while Nixon assures everyone he’s one of the good ones
Ooh, do tell me more about this strange land called the US.
I’m not suggesting orphans shouldn’t get blood transfusions if they need them, but this is a really weird image…?!
Trying to tell me Nixon isn’t a hero of the proletariat and a generally trustworthy guy??
This might be a bold statement, but I’d even go so far as to say I think he might be a crook!
ACAB
And C is not for cops
And the first A is for Ackshually
And B is for Bidenism
Edit: @Judge_Jury@hexbear.net has informed me that B is for beast mode. Maybe one day I shall ascend to Padawan in the Way of Chapo-Posting.
The C is for counterrevolutionaries, I understand. Of course as a group, it also encompasses cops.
Why not both?
The USSR and it’s satellite states where heavily policed.
I’d still trust a Soviet cop before I trusted an American one. The American’s more prone to ‘fear for his life’ and dump his entire mag into my chest at a traffic stop. And that’s not even getting into potential blackbaggings by the FBI and CIA, where they’ve literally got clandestine black sites all over the place to get their jollies torturing political prisoners; so I mean. Couple that with the fact that y’all destroyed the Soviets, it’s kind of a moot point; so ‘ACAB’ can only really refer to one strain of pig motherfuck anymore.
I’d still trust a Soviet cop before I trusted an American one.
That reveals a frightening lack of understanding of Soviet cops.
And that’s far from saying American cops are trustworthy.
And that’s far from saying American cops are trustworthy.
Are you really suggesting they are trustworthy?!
… no, that’s literally the opposite of what was said.
no, that’s literally the opposite of what was said.
That’s good, I was worried there for a second.
That reveals a frightening lack of understanding of Soviet cops.
Would you mind expanding on this (please include sources)?
Would you mind expanding on this (please include sources)?
Considering you’re from Lemmygrad, I doubt your sincerity in requesting this.
