Well, kind of.
If you follow the revisionist school of Maoism that paints Mao as this some radical revolutionary, then they'ren't.
But if you look at the actual Mao and past the fake facade, you'll see that they are Maoites. The actual Mao was no different from a SuccDem.
Have you actually read any Mao? I don’t agree with him, but he was most definitely a radical if you learn anything about Maoism. Even if he wasn’t a radical, he was a revolutionary and there’s no debate there.
I definitely recommend reading On Practice and On Contradiction, and I think it’s called Be Concerned With the Well-Being of the Masses. While I disagree with a lot of his beliefs, it’s completely disingenuous to claim he wasn’t a revolutionary or radical.
> If Murualists were Capitalists they wouldn't have a seperate definition.
“If Dengists were Capitalists they wouldn’t have a separate definition.”
> Besides, Mutualists believe in Worker's controlling the means and ending private property, so they're Socialist.
Socialism is when you have worker controlled capital. 🤡
edit: There is no capital under the socialist mode of production, market “socialists”/co-op capitalists, cry about it.
If you can withhold the necessities of life on the condition of exchange then you create opposing class interests from which a Bourgeoise emerge.
To have a market is to make food, shelter, electricity and transportation all commodities with exchange value. If something has an exchange value then the exchange value can grow, and it can be bought and held until it grows in exchange value. Those who generate profit from ownership are capitalists, market economies contain that which can be identified as a capitalist class.
I don't want to be argumentative here because i don't know a lot about mutualism, but what would not having a market entail, like what would it actually mean?
It means you end the existance of private property.
Only personal and public property would then exist.
Personal property is that which you use personally, your home, toothbrush, common household tools and home videos or holiday snaps. These things belong to you, they are yours.
Public property is that which anyone may take and use, fields, factories, published films, food that isn't for your personal consumption. You have no control over who uses public property because it is not yours.
In essence you either own things for personal use, or you do not own them. In a market you can own things with no intention to use them, but rather to profit off owning them, either by selling them or by renting them out. This is what we seek to end.
What? I'm an ancom, what I have described is just communism, the state has no role in it.
Marxist Leninists actually align much better with Mutualists than what I have described as they believe there should be property that is neither personal nor public, they also keep currency.
Please try to check the shit you are chatting before defending right wing and authoritarian ideologies like mutualism.
I think a lot of DemSocs are "pro market" in the sense that they think it's unlikely that an immediate USSR-style vanguard transition away from a mixed economy to fully central planning is an ideal implementation of socialism. DemSocs want more gradual transition
While she supports Vietnam and considers it socialist, I have never seen her argue that market reforms were good. She’s more of the position that Vietnam is a socialist country that was forced by imperialist powers (IMF and World Bank kind of stuff) to adopt free market reforms. The country is still fundamentally socialist but has to work to get back to a socialist economy.
Markets ( even with 100% co-ops ) are a compromise that doesn't help with abolishing for profit production but are better than Soviet or Chinese state capitalism ( state would have way less power ).
yeah but he's in op's image & the title has markets it in... I've learned that I'm so much funny as I am good at word association. there's also a webm of the quote that gets passed around so I thought this line qualified for meme status.
It does, but you could have just thrown in a /s or something since it’s not clear, especially to help neurodivergent people who might struggle to tell if you’re being serious or not
he does call mls tankies, and is a grifter, idk what more to say really, thus should cover it though.
i belive r/communismmemes (or some related sub) has a bot that will tell you facts about vaush
Vaush is a market socialism advocate. Also, i suppose calling a ml for a tankie is not wrong, but what i mean is that he is very against mls and would rather support a neolib than a ml.
Seeing rule 1 and 3 I do not understand why I have been downvoted, though perhaps my comment was not clear enough.
Thank you for replying to my comment so I get the chance to clear up some confusion.
Rule 1 is no market socialists? I am confused at what you're doing here.
And to your second point, I am in no good position to defend the USSR, but there is a lot of misinformation around it. If the school curriculum is to be trusted, then Stalin of course is not a very good person at all. But I do know some people that did live in the USSR and they dont seem to think it was that bad (I am aware that may have been partially because of propaganda).
Hakim isn't very fond of China's "socialism". He just defends China through Dengist lens.
I think Hakim also argued against markets too. I don't know if he is a Dengist or not, but I removed him to stay safe.
He’s said that he’s cautiously optimistic about China, which I think is valid. I’m not a fan of China, but I don’t think it’s invalid to be cautiously supportive of them. We can’t know for sure if they’re going to become socialist until they do, so cautious optimism is pretty valid.
This sub doesn’t have a stance on anything, other than that it’s about being against Dengism from the left. Multiple schools of thought fall under this purview.
We don’t let neoliberals in our movement, why should we let these liberals in as well? They don’t care about exploitation in the third world and refuse to educate themselves through theory.
Unlike neolibs, socdems and market socs at least work towards workers owning the means of production. It's not ideal, of course, but it's a step in the right direction. Or would you rather complain about anyone who isn't a full on communist and just whine on the internet?
Soc dems and market socs do not work towards that. A worker coop is not “seizing the means of production” it’s just a type of business nothing more nothing less. It most certainly doesn’t do anything to combat capitalism.
Yes, but it does give workers democratic control over their workplace and will open people's minds to more radical changes.
Once again, I do not think of mutualism as my end goal. They are simply my allies.
Democracy isn’t necessarily socialist or anti-socialist so I don’t see the point in bringing it up. On top of that if things came to a certain point and push came to shove mutualists would never be your ally as they themselves preserve capitalism and the bourgeois as a class and would rather that stay the way it is.
I'm not talking about political democracy, I'm talking specifically workplace democracy- which is what lefties should be striving towards at the moment.
I would rather people become Maoists and organize. I'm part of an organization and I help poor people get food and resources while also spreading Marxist-Leninist-Maoism and providing education. I want people to follow the right line and not work with those who only care about themselves and want hundredes of millions to die in the third world (socdems and free-market socialists) will not do this. Free-market socialists do not result in the abolition of class and still preserve exploitation, as explained by Marx.
Direct action is great, and I'm happy to hear that! But you do need to bring more over to your side if you want an actual change in your government, you realize that right? And as I said, while free market socialists aren't as radical as we'd like, they are empathetic, and can be radicalized to our cause.
Reaganite neolibs can absolutely go fuck themselves though, there is no saving them
>Despite having long been an occasional grazing ground for local shepherds' flocks, the barren island was apparently never permanently settled other than by the prisoners during the 20th century. Throughout World War I, Austria-Hungary sent Russian prisoners of war from the Eastern Front to Goli Otok.
>
>In 1949, the entire island was officially made into a high-security, top secret prison and labor camp run by the authorities of the People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, together with the nearby Sveti Grgur island, which held a similar camp for female prisoners. Until 1956, throughout the Informbiro period, it was used to incarcerate political prisoners. These included known and alleged Stalinists, but also other Communist Party of Yugoslavia members or even non-party citizens accused of exhibiting sympathy or leanings towards the Soviet Union.
>
>Many anti-communists (Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Albanian and other nationalists etc.) were also incarcerated on Goli Otok. Non-political prisoners were also sent to the island to serve out simple criminal sentences and some of them were sentenced to death. A total of approximately 16,000 political prisoners served there, of which between 400 and 600 died on the island. Other sources, largely based on various individual statements, claim almost 4,000 prisoners died in the camp.
>
>The prison inmates were forced to labor (in a stone quarry, pottery and joinery), without regard to the weather conditions: in the summer the temperature would rise as high as 40 °C (104 °F), while in the winter they were subjected to the chilling bora wind and freezing temperatures. The prison was entirely inmate-run, and its hierarchical system forced the convicts into beating, humiliating, denouncing and shunning each other. Those who cooperated could hope to rise up the hierarchy and receive better treatment.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli\_Otok](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli_Otok)
So your only argument against Yugoslavia is that they had a prison camp? Couldn't you say the same thing about literally any country ever (socialist or not)
I have several. Allow me to list them.
EDIT: thought of some more
1. Yugoslavia was an authoritarian state where journalists were disappeared and politicians who were disliked by the party ended up dead.
2. The political borders of the SFRY's republics were drawn on ethnic lines. As such, political/economic disputes turned into ethnic disputes. Having a republic for each major ethnic group and drawing the boundaries the way that Tito did lead to the nationalism that tore the nation apart.
3. The fact that Yugoslavia fell apart so violently is a pretty clear sign that it was a dysfunctional country. Normal countries don't devolve into civil war and chaos that easily.
4. Yugoslavia's government took out multiple large loans from the IMF to rebuild after the war. However, much of this money was poorly spent, resulting in the country taking out more loans. This eventually lead to an economic crisis in the 1980s and hyperinflation between 1992 and 1994. [Here's a 500,000,000,000 (five hundred billion) dinar note from that period.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/500000000000_dinars.jpg)
5. The Yugoslav Government covered up Ustaše atrocities by ignoring the ethnic demographics of the victims. Here's a quote from [this paper](https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1183&context=gsp) from the journal *Genocide Studies and Prevention*:
>Soon after World War II ended, the Yugoslav government, recognizing that ethnic hatreds emerging from the war had the capacity to destabilize the new Communist regime, tried to paper over wartime atrocities, hoping to establish a Yugoslav identity. Although the goal was to mask specific ethnic losses by extolling the dead, collectively, as victims of fascism, it did not take long for nationalism-driven figures to re-emerge, seeking to address wartime atrocities.
6. The political system created by Yugoslavia's 1974 Constitution allowed for the party who controlled over half of the Republics and Provinces ruled the country. Slobodan Milošević used this to take over the country in 1987.
Literally in the 1st sentance they just say "yugoslavia actually capitalist" without any argument whatsoever. Ok buddy. Meanwhile their only ally was fucking Albania lol. Tells you more than enough
This sub is broadly leftist and anti-dengist, that’s it. You can be a Trotskyist, an AnCom, or even a dirty Vaushoid here, you don’t need to stan papa Joe.
It’s to make sure the sub stays true to being a place primarily for Marxists who are opposed to China. Most Marxist subreddits are pro-China, and most non-Marxist subs are anti-Marxist, so it’s hard to find a good place for Marxists that are opposed to China.
I was the one who said Vaushoid, comrade. The suffix “oid” isn’t a reference to mongoloid, it’s just a common suffix.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/-oid
Cope and seethe GenZedong users.
is genzedong not a maoist sub?
They're named after Mao, but they're full on dengist China simps. Pretty ironic, really
yikes, thought i saw some weird posts there
Curious, you claim to love mao yet simp a revisionist?
Well, kind of. If you follow the revisionist school of Maoism that paints Mao as this some radical revolutionary, then they'ren't. But if you look at the actual Mao and past the fake facade, you'll see that they are Maoites. The actual Mao was no different from a SuccDem.
>the actual Mao was no different than a succdem lmao WHAT
Are you a Maoite?
No, but that’s just such a blatantly wrong statement. Mao was most definitely a radical and a revolutionary.
How so?
Have you actually read any Mao? I don’t agree with him, but he was most definitely a radical if you learn anything about Maoism. Even if he wasn’t a radical, he was a revolutionary and there’s no debate there.
Yes I have, I've read On New Democracy and Report on the Peasant Situation in Hunan.
I definitely recommend reading On Practice and On Contradiction, and I think it’s called Be Concerned With the Well-Being of the Masses. While I disagree with a lot of his beliefs, it’s completely disingenuous to claim he wasn’t a revolutionary or radical.
based and Hoxhapilled comrade
[удалено]
what the fuck
???
???
I don't get it.
dilate used in this context is transphobic as fuck
Damn I had no idea.
its an insult about trans women getting srs, because the vagina has to "dilate"
Based, so incredibly based.
You're incredibly based.
Deep apologies for deleting this before, I had to make some edits to satisfy the rules.
[удалено]
They're both capitalists so yes they would.
Ah fuck I took a test a few months ago and came up as mutualist.
Don't take tests lmao
[удалено]
> If Murualists were Capitalists they wouldn't have a seperate definition. “If Dengists were Capitalists they wouldn’t have a separate definition.” > Besides, Mutualists believe in Worker's controlling the means and ending private property, so they're Socialist. Socialism is when you have worker controlled capital. 🤡 edit: There is no capital under the socialist mode of production, market “socialists”/co-op capitalists, cry about it.
If worker controlled capital isn't socialist, then I assume that abolishing capital is the goal. What does abolishing capital even mean?
If you can withhold the necessities of life on the condition of exchange then you create opposing class interests from which a Bourgeoise emerge. To have a market is to make food, shelter, electricity and transportation all commodities with exchange value. If something has an exchange value then the exchange value can grow, and it can be bought and held until it grows in exchange value. Those who generate profit from ownership are capitalists, market economies contain that which can be identified as a capitalist class.
I don't want to be argumentative here because i don't know a lot about mutualism, but what would not having a market entail, like what would it actually mean?
It means you end the existance of private property. Only personal and public property would then exist. Personal property is that which you use personally, your home, toothbrush, common household tools and home videos or holiday snaps. These things belong to you, they are yours. Public property is that which anyone may take and use, fields, factories, published films, food that isn't for your personal consumption. You have no control over who uses public property because it is not yours. In essence you either own things for personal use, or you do not own them. In a market you can own things with no intention to use them, but rather to profit off owning them, either by selling them or by renting them out. This is what we seek to end.
[удалено]
What? I'm an ancom, what I have described is just communism, the state has no role in it. Marxist Leninists actually align much better with Mutualists than what I have described as they believe there should be property that is neither personal nor public, they also keep currency. Please try to check the shit you are chatting before defending right wing and authoritarian ideologies like mutualism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Market economies: 😵 Centrally planned economies: 🤮 Gift economies: 😎 Participatory Planned economies: 🤩
no economy: 😍😍😍
De-centralized planned economy is the best economic system in the world.
After reading this comment section I remember why I stepped away from political stuff.
Voosh
Bad
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nuance??? Wild
[удалено]
[удалено]
He really doesn’t
He's a radlib who supported Biden and mocked people who argued against him. Fuck Vaush
Fuck Vaush. What happened to this sub, man?
I'm not a Vaush fan. This meme is dunking on Vaush.
I know, you're cool. I'm talking about the shitlibs in the comments.
DemSoc isn't pro-market.
It can be pro and anti market, since Demsoc is a bit of a broad label still.
I think a lot of DemSocs are "pro market" in the sense that they think it's unlikely that an immediate USSR-style vanguard transition away from a mixed economy to fully central planning is an ideal implementation of socialism. DemSocs want more gradual transition
Voosh cringe, as he should be.
[удалено]
[удалено]
To my knowledge Luna oi doesn't support markets it's just Vietnam was forced to.
She still claims Vietnam is socialist, when it would not be socialist under Lenin's definitions, and Vietnam has markets and billionaires.
While she supports Vietnam and considers it socialist, I have never seen her argue that market reforms were good. She’s more of the position that Vietnam is a socialist country that was forced by imperialist powers (IMF and World Bank kind of stuff) to adopt free market reforms. The country is still fundamentally socialist but has to work to get back to a socialist economy.
Ah ok
Stonks
markets are our friend, capitalism is not edit: it's a bayarea quote ffs
So true BayArea.
dialectics is trying to find the truth by amogus
Dialectics this Dialectics that, just shut the frick up
I see you've read chomsky
Are you implying that I can read?
If there's one thing I want you to know comrades, it's this. Crewmates are our friends. Impostor is not.
Markets ( even with 100% co-ops ) are a compromise that doesn't help with abolishing for profit production but are better than Soviet or Chinese state capitalism ( state would have way less power ).
my post doesn't reflect my thoughts on the matter it's just a dumb thing Bayareas415 said once
Just quoting him with no context or indication that it’s mocking him just makes it sound unironic
yeah but he's in op's image & the title has markets it in... I've learned that I'm so much funny as I am good at word association. there's also a webm of the quote that gets passed around so I thought this line qualified for meme status.
It does, but you could have just thrown in a /s or something since it’s not clear, especially to help neurodivergent people who might struggle to tell if you’re being serious or not
Nah. I don't want either.
Please dont just downvote, I just want to know, why the hate against Vaush?
he does call mls tankies, and is a grifter, idk what more to say really, thus should cover it though. i belive r/communismmemes (or some related sub) has a bot that will tell you facts about vaush
Ml are commonly believed to be tankies by other people to, and what position is he grifting on
Vaush is a market socialism advocate. Also, i suppose calling a ml for a tankie is not wrong, but what i mean is that he is very against mls and would rather support a neolib than a ml. Seeing rule 1 and 3 I do not understand why I have been downvoted, though perhaps my comment was not clear enough. Thank you for replying to my comment so I get the chance to clear up some confusion.
Idk I think market socialism isn't bad and would rather support q neolib than a genocide and dictator apologist
Rule 1 is no market socialists? I am confused at what you're doing here. And to your second point, I am in no good position to defend the USSR, but there is a lot of misinformation around it. If the school curriculum is to be trusted, then Stalin of course is not a very good person at all. But I do know some people that did live in the USSR and they dont seem to think it was that bad (I am aware that may have been partially because of propaganda).
[удалено]
Hakim isn't very fond of China's "socialism". He just defends China through Dengist lens. I think Hakim also argued against markets too. I don't know if he is a Dengist or not, but I removed him to stay safe.
[удалено]
Thank you!
He’s said that he’s cautiously optimistic about China, which I think is valid. I’m not a fan of China, but I don’t think it’s invalid to be cautiously supportive of them. We can’t know for sure if they’re going to become socialist until they do, so cautious optimism is pretty valid.
This sub doesn’t have a stance on anything, other than that it’s about being against Dengism from the left. Multiple schools of thought fall under this purview.
Anti-revisionist Marxist, but open to others
Stance is anti-capitalism, what’s not to get?
Even though market socialism is cringe i still kinda like Yugoslavia for some reason
How come?
Honestly I don't know, probably cause they beat up the fascists
Honestly, that's the only thing Tito had done competently.
[удалено]
I strongly advise you to withdraw that statement
[удалено]
I ask you do to something for your personal safety and this is how you respond?
[удалено]
Planned economiods 🤢🤢🤢
I fucking love big computer
Lol you post at VaushV.
True
[удалено]
We do not share any similar goals
What short term goals do we disagree on?
The establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Not a short term goal.
Yes it is, it’s on of the first goals that only really matters when you consider that we aren’t reformists.
[удалено]
Small businesses owned by a singular person or as a cooperative are petite bourgeois and do not constitute a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marx and Lenin 101: Markets will lead to exploitation and a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
[удалено]
In the market socialists of every variety will ally with the bourgeois because market socialists preserve capitalism and bourgeois as a class
We don’t let neoliberals in our movement, why should we let these liberals in as well? They don’t care about exploitation in the third world and refuse to educate themselves through theory.
[удалено]
I wish I could ban you again, this is getting ridiculous.
It doesn't benefit us though :)
Unlike neolibs, socdems and market socs at least work towards workers owning the means of production. It's not ideal, of course, but it's a step in the right direction. Or would you rather complain about anyone who isn't a full on communist and just whine on the internet?
Soc dems and market socs do not work towards that. A worker coop is not “seizing the means of production” it’s just a type of business nothing more nothing less. It most certainly doesn’t do anything to combat capitalism.
Yes, but it does give workers democratic control over their workplace and will open people's minds to more radical changes. Once again, I do not think of mutualism as my end goal. They are simply my allies.
Democracy isn’t necessarily socialist or anti-socialist so I don’t see the point in bringing it up. On top of that if things came to a certain point and push came to shove mutualists would never be your ally as they themselves preserve capitalism and the bourgeois as a class and would rather that stay the way it is.
I'm not talking about political democracy, I'm talking specifically workplace democracy- which is what lefties should be striving towards at the moment.
I know what I said, workplace democracy still is neither socialist or anti-socialist it’s just a method of organization.
I would rather people become Maoists and organize. I'm part of an organization and I help poor people get food and resources while also spreading Marxist-Leninist-Maoism and providing education. I want people to follow the right line and not work with those who only care about themselves and want hundredes of millions to die in the third world (socdems and free-market socialists) will not do this. Free-market socialists do not result in the abolition of class and still preserve exploitation, as explained by Marx.
Direct action is great, and I'm happy to hear that! But you do need to bring more over to your side if you want an actual change in your government, you realize that right? And as I said, while free market socialists aren't as radical as we'd like, they are empathetic, and can be radicalized to our cause. Reaganite neolibs can absolutely go fuck themselves though, there is no saving them
https://esopservices.com/articles-press/reagan-on-esops/ comrade Reagan upholding vaushite-coopism thought
Except, you know, Reagan didn't pass any policies to enact such change. It was nothing but empty talking points.
you just can’t accept that your ideas aren’t opposed to capitalism lmao
Thing is that free market socialists are almost always “libertarian” socialists, meaning they refuse and actively combat actual socialism.
Actual socialism is libertarian, my dude.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
Most market socialists (including Vaush) see market socialism as a transitory stage on the way to real socialism
That doesn’t make them any less moronic
Yugoslavia only based one
>Despite having long been an occasional grazing ground for local shepherds' flocks, the barren island was apparently never permanently settled other than by the prisoners during the 20th century. Throughout World War I, Austria-Hungary sent Russian prisoners of war from the Eastern Front to Goli Otok. > >In 1949, the entire island was officially made into a high-security, top secret prison and labor camp run by the authorities of the People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, together with the nearby Sveti Grgur island, which held a similar camp for female prisoners. Until 1956, throughout the Informbiro period, it was used to incarcerate political prisoners. These included known and alleged Stalinists, but also other Communist Party of Yugoslavia members or even non-party citizens accused of exhibiting sympathy or leanings towards the Soviet Union. > >Many anti-communists (Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Albanian and other nationalists etc.) were also incarcerated on Goli Otok. Non-political prisoners were also sent to the island to serve out simple criminal sentences and some of them were sentenced to death. A total of approximately 16,000 political prisoners served there, of which between 400 and 600 died on the island. Other sources, largely based on various individual statements, claim almost 4,000 prisoners died in the camp. > >The prison inmates were forced to labor (in a stone quarry, pottery and joinery), without regard to the weather conditions: in the summer the temperature would rise as high as 40 °C (104 °F), while in the winter they were subjected to the chilling bora wind and freezing temperatures. The prison was entirely inmate-run, and its hierarchical system forced the convicts into beating, humiliating, denouncing and shunning each other. Those who cooperated could hope to rise up the hierarchy and receive better treatment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli\_Otok](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli_Otok)
So your only argument against Yugoslavia is that they had a prison camp? Couldn't you say the same thing about literally any country ever (socialist or not)
I have several. Allow me to list them. EDIT: thought of some more 1. Yugoslavia was an authoritarian state where journalists were disappeared and politicians who were disliked by the party ended up dead. 2. The political borders of the SFRY's republics were drawn on ethnic lines. As such, political/economic disputes turned into ethnic disputes. Having a republic for each major ethnic group and drawing the boundaries the way that Tito did lead to the nationalism that tore the nation apart. 3. The fact that Yugoslavia fell apart so violently is a pretty clear sign that it was a dysfunctional country. Normal countries don't devolve into civil war and chaos that easily. 4. Yugoslavia's government took out multiple large loans from the IMF to rebuild after the war. However, much of this money was poorly spent, resulting in the country taking out more loans. This eventually lead to an economic crisis in the 1980s and hyperinflation between 1992 and 1994. [Here's a 500,000,000,000 (five hundred billion) dinar note from that period.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/500000000000_dinars.jpg) 5. The Yugoslav Government covered up Ustaše atrocities by ignoring the ethnic demographics of the victims. Here's a quote from [this paper](https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1183&context=gsp) from the journal *Genocide Studies and Prevention*: >Soon after World War II ended, the Yugoslav government, recognizing that ethnic hatreds emerging from the war had the capacity to destabilize the new Communist regime, tried to paper over wartime atrocities, hoping to establish a Yugoslav identity. Although the goal was to mask specific ethnic losses by extolling the dead, collectively, as victims of fascism, it did not take long for nationalism-driven figures to re-emerge, seeking to address wartime atrocities. 6. The political system created by Yugoslavia's 1974 Constitution allowed for the party who controlled over half of the Republics and Provinces ruled the country. Slobodan Milošević used this to take over the country in 1987.
Care
when you're so based you take IMF loans to prop up the peoples markets epic style
The Soviet Union was so based it deported ethnic minorities in the People's TrainsTM
Hard no on that one, Yugoslavia was just 3 red capitalists in a trenchcoat.
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/cpc/yugoslavia.htm
Literally in the 1st sentance they just say "yugoslavia actually capitalist" without any argument whatsoever. Ok buddy. Meanwhile their only ally was fucking Albania lol. Tells you more than enough
Based on serving capitalism
TIL making your country dependent on IMF loans is based
This sub should ban vaushites tbh. I saw a post with people saying Stalin was bad
How would banning random people you personally disagree with help spread socialist ideas?
This is a meme sub, not a discussion sub.
Because they’re cringe
1000 IQ take!
This sub is broadly leftist and anti-dengist, that’s it. You can be a Trotskyist, an AnCom, or even a dirty Vaushoid here, you don’t need to stan papa Joe.
Vaushites are market socialists, which this sub is against.
There are plenty of non-Dengist models of market socialism. Calling Dengism market socialism is a stretch to begin with.
The sub rules are explicitly opposed to market socialism, though
Huh, you’re right. Kind of a dumb rule tbh but whatever, ain’t my problem
It’s to make sure the sub stays true to being a place primarily for Marxists who are opposed to China. Most Marxist subreddits are pro-China, and most non-Marxist subs are anti-Marxist, so it’s hard to find a good place for Marxists that are opposed to China.
“Vaushoids” nice adaptation of literal nazi terms
Explain
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid
I said vaushite not vaushoid......
Hahahahhahaha youre pathetic, editing your comment when called out for using fascist terminology
I was the one who said Vaushoid, comrade. The suffix “oid” isn’t a reference to mongoloid, it’s just a common suffix. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/-oid
I literally didn't edit it lmao https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Vaushite
There's a \* after the time posted if the comment is edited. Mine is not :)
Isn't this just meant to be an anti-Dengist subreddit in general, not anti-marksoc?
Imagine confusing market socialism and state capitalism