Incredible self-own on your part.

You don’t need to be a mod to check the modlog, it’s public information unless the admin or moderator deems the content to be worthy of permanently purging, like CSAM links. In that regard, it would make no sense for me to “create a false narrative,” anyone that wishes to can see what you wrote by checking the moderation history of your comment. Just click the 3 dots on a comment and you can find it.

Either way, calling people “dick riders” and telling them to “shove it up their asses” is only insulting by nature of drawing on social shame towards homosexuality. You can insult people, call them sycophants, etc. without resorting to homophobia and throwing queer people under the bus.

You also seem to be a fan of racism and ableism, going by your other removed comments. Lovely.

Why are reactionaries all so homophobic?

There was never a massacre on Tian’anmen square. Hundreds died in various areas surrounding it in Beijing, but a lie was spread that, when the PLA had made it to the Square itself, they had slaughtered the protestors there. This is the “Tian’anmen Square Massacre,” except this didn’t happen, and even Wikipedia now finally acknowledges this if you check the page. This is why the tragedy is remembered as the June 4th incident in China, because the actual center of the protests, the square itself, was evacuated bloodlessly.

There was never a massacre on Tian’anmen square. Hundreds died in various areas surrounding it in Beijing, but a lie was spread that, when the PLA had made it to the Square itself, they had slaughtered the protestors there. This is the “Tian’anmen Square Massacre,” except this didn’t happen, and even Wikipedia now finally acknowledges this if you check the page. This is why the tragedy is remembered as the June 4th incident in China, because the actual center of the protests, the square itself, was evacuated bloodlessly.

I hope it will, so who knows!

Supportive of private property and capitalism.

You don’t have to be bourgeois to follow bourgeois ideology.

I already answered this over on Late Stage Capitalism, so I’ll just copy and paste my response over here:

I’m sorry, but this just reveals that we aren’t on the same page when it comes to Marxism. Your primary error is with erasing all of the advances of historical materialism and scientific socialism from Marx, and returning it to the utopianism of pre-Marx socialists such as Robert Owen. Essentially, you are treating capitalism as “private property,” socialism as “public property,” and communism as “big socialism.” This is dogmatic, and erases that modes of production are NOT their finite parts, but instead are determined by which aspect of the economy is principal, ie dominant and rising, and which class controls the state.

When you say China is a “mix of capitalism and socialism,” this horrendously misrepresents what a mode of production actually is. In China, public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. Huge state industry forms the backbone of the economy, and governs the large firms and key industries. This is because public ownership and planning is more effective at higher levels of development.

The private property that exists in China is relegated to small and medium industries, and highly competitive ones. This is because of the key development in Marxism advancing it beyond utopianism: the form of production suits the level of development of the productive forces. Rather than taking the Utopian path, which was to “model build” and create a system outright, Marx observed that capitalism came from feudalism with the rise in industrialization, and that markets themselves were centralizing, in other words socializing production while keeping profits private!

To return, your position that “the more communist you are, the more you dogmatically collectivize, regardless of level of development” is distinctly anti-Marxist, and moreover was already tried by China! Under the Gang of Four, there became a fetishization of equality in poverty. They were dogmatic in trying to collectivize as much as possible, with little regard for the level of development. Reform & Opening Up was a return to more classical interpretations of Marx, and thus saw a stablization and slight acceleration in development. This strategy and understanding is reflected in Cheng Enfu’s diagram, here:

When Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party, their basic advice to any successful revolution is to nationalize the large firms and key industries, develop the productive forces as rapidly as possible, and gradually nationalize the rest of the economy as it develops. This reflects the exact path the PRC is charting, right now. This is why it’s important to read and understand theory, as if you became a leader of a new socialist country with your current understanding, you’d likely commit the same mistakes as the Gang of Four.

I already said the concept of communism predates Marx. I am not redefining communism to Marxism. OP is asking about socialism and communism as they actually exist and are understood, and further “primitive communism” as described by Marx is misleading and instead is better described as “communalism.”

This is all incredibly hypocritical coming from you as well, considering you were adamant that China had abandoned communism over in this thread. Why are you now trying to say, essentially, that “communism is in the eye of the beholder?”

“Religious communism” is not a thing, and early communalism exists in micro-pockets. Neither is the same as what is understood as communism, the theoretical mode of production that predates Marxism.

Agreed! It’s very fun!

Not a single one of the ideologies listed on that page has successfully established socialism except for the derivatives of Marxism-Leninism, such as Juche. The closest is Zapatismo, but Zapatismo does not consider itself communist, nor socialist, nor anarchist, and instead is a primarily indigenous ideology related to the Chiapas region.

The fact of the matter is that Marxism-Leninism is what communism means for 99.9% of historical practice. Someone trying to describe sharing as “communism” when OP is talking about actual modes of production and distribution is missing the forest for the trees. Marx didn’t define communism, he created an ideology that better understands how to actually achieve it and why it is historically compelled, what gives him validity is that the only socialism that has actually existed at scale in real life has come from Marxism-Leninism.

Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu’s diagram:

You have a horrible understanding of socialism, communism, and social democracy, that frankly makes things more confusing.

Entirely wrong.

Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu’s diagram:

The government in socialism does not “step aside.” Instead, the working class state collectivizes all production and distribution, at which point classes no longer exist and all that remains of the state is administrative duties, which are socially necessary. Many states have developed socialism, but communism is global and post-socialist.

Further, distribution in communism is based on need, not equal to everyone.

Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal (rising and dominant) aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution where the entire economy is collectivized and planned, and there is no longer a state, class, or money. See Cheng Enfu’s diagram:

In short, I drifted from anarchism to Marxism after joining the work force and understanding more about production, distribution, and complex manufacturing and supply chains. Certainly not towards liberalism, the opposite in fact, into the communist I am today.

Right now I’m reading Neocolonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism by Kwame Nkrumah. It’s a really good expansion of Lenin’s work on Imperialism as a stage in capitalism. Nkrumah was coup’d one year after its publishing with support from the US.

As for favorites, I really love both Piranesi and Roadside Picnic! The former is just a really fun mystery with a good deal of whimsy, the latter is excellent sci-fi.

Closer to Nazis than communists.