Their idol Mao killed approx 160 million humans.
Comment on Chinese propaganda is rampant on the fediverse
JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoThis seems right. Personally I’m not sure I could roll my eyes harder at the fact that so many people in 2026 are so ignorant as to be prepared to call themselves “communists” - after all the famines, the purges, the 40 years in which much of Europe was struggling to escape (literally) from communism… And then I saw that you, too, call yourself a communist! So I guess I’ll stop there.
Except to recommend you the Ones and Tooze podcast, in which the brilliant host (an ex-communist) recently did a whole series, in great and illuminating detail, on the various communist thinkers. Which I listened to… dutifully.
DSN9@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Damn, out jerking the black book of communism by an order of magnitude. You’re really going for it
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Do you have a source on that? Even if you include landlords killed by the peasantry during land reform, all of the deaths by unintentional famine, and the excesses of the cultural revolution as deliberately killed by Mao, the numbers accepted by Historians are nowhere close to 160 million. This is such a fantastical number that even the famously debunked Black Book of Communism doesn’t go over 100 million, and that was including the entire history of the soviet union as well as PRC. The Black Book of Communism famously included both non-births as deaths, and Nazis killed by the Red Army as “victims of communism.”
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Communists govern the largest economy in the world by PPP, and capitalism is falling apart at the seams as the spoils of imperialism are beginning to be cut off. The global south is escaping underdevelopment, and this is forcing austerity in the west, explaining the surge to the right. In the US Empire, communists are more and more common than ever before:
Image
Famine was ended by communists in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. These areas had woefully inefficient systems of agriculture, such as the kulak system, which served to enrich one group of people over the laborers they employed. Collectivization combined with industrialization is why food security was achieved after the introduction of socialism to these countries, and the famines commonly attributed by western historians to communism were the last of a long line of regular famines.
Similarly, purges in the largest majority of cases meant expulsion from the party or position, not execution, except in times of crisis, like the 1930s when fascism was on the rise. They were not done arbitrarily, but as a response to corruption, subterfuge, and sabotage.
It’s also a bit silly to suggest that people spent “40 years trying to escape communism.” Right up to the end, the majority of people in the USSR wished to retain both the USSR and the system of socialism. This is proven not just from eyewitness reports of support, but also vote totals:
Image
Moreover, after the fall of socialism in Europe, the majority of people want it back or say they are worse off. This is compounded by the fact that over 90% of the Chinese population supports their government and system. Socialist countries run by communists have higher approval rates than capitalist states.
Looking at Adam Tooze, I don’t see much indicating him as a former communist. He grew up in West Germany in the height of the Cold War, is trained in liberal economics such as Keynesian economics, though his grandfather was allegedly a soviet recruiter, which is cool. I’m not really convinced I could find much out of his mini-series on Luxemburg, Trotsky, Stalin, or Lenin, considering I’ve already read works both by them and about them in greater detail than a podcast is going to cover.
JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
He talked about it - some variety of Trotskyism IIRC. A bit of a surprise but shouldn’t have been. Tons of former Maoists have been in high positions. Even a neoliberal head of the European Commission (Barroso).
On the supposed virtues of communism, you won’t convince me but I suppose you know that already. IMO the world would have done very well to listen to George Orwell, someone who saw through it all on the basis of up-front experience 90 years ago. That might have saved an awful lot of needless suffering. Or Orlando Figes, who wrote a book whose title says it all: “The USSR: A People’s Tragedy”.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Just straight up admitting your anti-communism is an unshakable article of faith that no argument or evidence can change.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
To be fair, I don’t think many communists globally are fans of Trotskyism, considering it’s predominantly western and liberal-compatible. The vast majority of communists globally are Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyism is seen as more fringe, and distinguishes itself primarily in its rejection of existing socialism as such, on vague and idealist basis, rather than materialist. A former Trotskyist making loads of money off of denouncing communism is both entirely predictable and hardly compelling for those who’ve studied communism in theory and practice.
As for the rapist Eric Blair, also known as George Orwell, the western world listened to him too well. He didn’t see through anything, rather, his position as a British fed (known for keeping a journal of people he knew and suspected of being Jewish and/or communists) and propagandist was extremely useful to western intelligence agencies. On Orwell is a good essay going over his dreadfall past and role in propagandizing. Orwell has been taught in countless schools not because of any truth, but because of his utility.
As for Figes, another that earns an enourmous sum of money from preaching the bible of anti-communism to serve capitalist interests, better historians exist. Syzmanski’s Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union today, Pat Sloan’s Soviet Democracy, Human Rights in the Soviet Union, Anna Louise Strong’s This Soviet World, Mary Stevenson Callcott’s Russian Justice, the recently deceased Dr. Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds, all the way up to Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, there’s tons of academic resources to get a much better view of socialism in practice.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
This isn’t entirely true. The question posed essentially meant the USSR would reform into a more supranational organisation, granting more sovereignty and independence to the constituent republics. Voting “yes” was basically a vote for “‘less’ Soviet Union”, as there was no option to vote to dissolve it entirely. It’s also why after the yes-vote won, Soviet hardliners tried to coup the government.
When the New Union Treaty wasn’t fully implemented, member republics took it upon themselves to run full independence referendums, which were passed with overwhelming numbers (see the results on en.wikipedia.org/…/Category:Referendums_in_the_So…, 90%+ pro-independence in most countries. Remember, most happened in 1991 just like the Union referendum, and no large population swings to the complete opposite direction that fast). The massive disapproval of the communist party was also very visible, as the vast majority of republics started electing non-communist leaders.
And of course there were people still in favour of the Union, but they were largely outnumbered. Pro-union manifestations were met with large protests that often ended in police action to suppress them. Pro-Union sentiments started increasing again after the economic crises post-collapse, but it has never become so popular again to lead to a reformation.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I’m aware that after the votes, crisis in politics caused a dramatic swing in faith in the system. The question of viability of the socialist project wasn’t unclear, however. The dissolution of the USSR was something that happened not due to some inevitable death clock in socialism. Contrary to what you believe, popular opinion can swing that fast, such as in the US Empire, where within a single month sentiment on Israel flipped from overwhelmingly positive to majority negative.
Further, as I already showed, the large majority of people in post-soviet countries feel worse off and/or regret its fall. Socialism was an effective system at meeting the needs of the people, and though liberalization and a harsh recovery process from World War II strained the system, it was not on the way to collapse.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
It didn’t go from +90% to -90%. That’s what I mean with the huge ‘swing’ seen here. Negative attitudes on Israel went from 42% to 53% in 3 years time. Yet this supposed “total reversal of opinion” happened in months? Nonsense of course. Remember, the Soviet referendum did not have “dissolution” as an option. People picked the option closest to it.
This is irrelevant to the false notion that the Soviet Union dissolved against what the people wanted at the time, which that graphic is often used to misleadingly suggest.
Even then, opinion polling on the subject is highly unreliable. Even the same pollster slightly rephrasing the question nets wildly different results. In the Baltics opinion is pretty consistent that the fall of the USSR was a good thing. But Belarusians tend to disagree with that. But when Belarusians are asked if they prefer to follow a Soviet system or a western democratic system, they choose the latter. And when another pollster asks them again in the same year, opinions flip again.
There’s certainly a strong sentimental nostalgia towards the Union, though not in all former member states. Yet it seems unlikely the population would be willing to vote it back into existence.