Communist Tag - Tumblr Posts
“Communism will definitely work this time, guys, trust me! It’s just that no one else ever did proper communism, and we’re completely immune to making any mistakes or having any flaws in our system!”
I’m just saying, historically it hasn’t worked out. The Soviet Union collapsed, China isn’t communist in any practical way, and North Korea is the laughingstock of the world, even among its allies.
Cool. Maybe it hasn't worked for your bourgeoisie ass but it sure has for mine.
We were 500 million peasants until the CPC came and turned that around. In Shanghai arguably the richest city in China, before the revolution, people would die in scores in the streets and designated people had to come around and collect bodies. Before 1949 no steel was produced in China. The average lifespan in China was 36 years. The Soviet Union turned a backwaters feudal monarchy into the second strongest nation on the planet in 50 years. It electrified and motorized a nation which only a couple decades earlier were serfs. The Soviets killed millions of fascists and was the leading power in defeating the nazis. It was the communists who kicked out the french and usamericans in Vietnam. It was the communists who kicked out the fascists in Yugoslavia and built a multiethnic nation.
Communism has worked wonders that liberals can only dream of and they have never forgiven us for it. You just don't see the lifting of the poorest people up as success and that speaks volumes to your class allegiance. You are not the target audience of communism. You are a labor aristocrat at best; a traitor and an enemy to the working people the world over.
it's ridiculous how so many usamericans, especially social democrats, hold up fdr and the new deal as the best time in usamerican society. the new deal was granted to workers only as a concession during the great depression to prevent the growing communist movement from taking hold and overthrowing capitalist rule. the communists at the time warned that if the bourgeoisie could give the proletariat these rights, then they could also take them away. and they were exactly right. the prosperity that (white) usamericans enjoyed from the 1940s onward, which has only been sustained for so long by the usa's subjugation and exploitation of both its own minorities and the global south, was piece by piece stripped away, until we got to where we are now. so when people like bernie sanders and aoc call for social democratic reforms, just remember that the purpose of these reforms is to extend the lifespan of capitalism, and that if enacted, they too would be stripped away until we're right back here again. the only path forward is communism.
MARXIST&ANTI IMPERIALIST THINK TANKS:
NEWS ORIENTED:
Is China a communist country? I have seen many leftists say that China is a social imperialist country. I am confused, so I want to hear your opinion.
Well, let's be specific, here - China is not a communist country, in that communism is a classless, stateless society. China is a socialist country. Socialism, the lower stage of communism, is the transitional period between capitalism and communism.
China is a socialist country because it is a country where state power is held by the proletariat, through a workers state and a communist vanguard party. In contrast to capitalist countries, where state power is held by the bourgeoisie, in China the capitalist class is under the control of the working class. Workers, through the communist party, manage the country, and keep a tight leash on their national bourgeoisie. Under socialism, China went from being poorer than all but a few nations during its century of humiliation and foreign invasion, to having lifted 800 million people out of poverty through massive programs that built free housing, brought jobs to rural areas, and constructed massive public infrastructure.
Socialism is a necessary stage on the path to building communism, under which the capitalist class would cease to exist, and the state along with it. Some currents of thought, which have failed to bear fruit in reality, demand instead an instant transition to communism, to do away with all classes in one stroke. These currents claim that communists who have carried out revolutions and, in accordance with the conditions they faced in reality, instead set out on the long and arduous work of slowly developing their nations and building up the level of political and economic development towards the point they could actually make classes obsolete (rather than just declare them such with the stroke of a pen) have betrayed their revolutionary ideals. These views are mainly popular in the imperialist countries, where they enjoy no small degree of support from the empires that would very much like to invade China again, and whose communists tend to have very little experience in the complexities of actually carrying out revolution.
No small amount of money - billions of dollars, in fact - is dedicated by the US to 'countering Chinese influence' through enforcing a narrative that China is imperialist, that Chinese vaccines are dangerous, and whatever else. It's an investment that has largely paid off.
As an addendum, 'leftist' is a largely meaningless category. There are left and right wings of different classes, but the 'leftist' thought of the petty-bourgeoisie is completely unhelpful to the proletariat and to communists.
国庆快乐！
75 Years of the People's Republic of China!
I'm still working on this piece (for 3 years believe it or not!).
Every successful revolutionary movement must posses in its vanguard not only a fighting army, but also an army of labour.
The fighting army is an armed body of the vanguard party, tasked with carrying out political work. The army of labour consists of the class-conscious, active revolutionaries engaged not in warfighting, but production. During higher stages of revolution, this may entail running wartime industry and infrastructure, but in early stages has much more in common and with unionisation tactics, and is done in connection with labour unions themselves.
Further, all revolutionary fighting armies must also be, in some part, productive armies, armies of labour (so as to maintain themselves, build up their own base areas and infrastructure, etc). While revolutionary movements possessing only armies of labour (in the case of more backwards organisations), is common; the counterpart, of supposed revolutionary movements with a dedicated political corps but absolutely zero connection to the masses (and therby no army of labour), is tending to become equally as common.
The immediate task of the proletarian vanguard, in such a deteriorated political environment, is not just training with guns or spending the weekend "innawoods". It is, principally, building up the ranks of the army of labour to such a degree that they can politically support a fighting army when the time for one comes about.
Why isn't china supporting the currently ongoing socialist movements, such as those in india or the Philippines? Google says they used to support the Filipino Communists but stopped, why is that?
The PRC currently holds a non-interventionist policy. This means that they generally don't fund or support groups/movements. Instead, they megotiate with you as a country. The downside to this is that if you're a small org or if you're hurting for material support, you unfortunately can't get it from the PRC. The upside is that if the Philippines or Indian communists seize power, the PRC will openly negotiate and trade with them and give their government legitimacy on the world stage.
The reason for why the PRC adopted this policy is multi-faceted and largely stems from having to exist within a global political economy that is dominated by the united states and its imperialism. They already accuse the PRC of doing interference, if the PRC was actually actively supporting various groups, the west would most certainly become even more hostile towards the PRC, as it was shown historically with the Soviet Union. Second, as well developed the PRC is economically, they lack soft power and only account for a third of world manufacturing/economy, which, for a single country is incredible, but they more or less stand alone against a more or less united imperialist block who commands more soft power, manufacturing, global institutions, and military hardware.
Personally, I disagree with the non-interventionist policy even if I understand the reason why. With the imperialist block already turning to directly challenge the PRC after realizing that after 40 years the CPC hadn't in fact liberalized the country, holding up this aspect of the foreign policy curtain becomes increasingly untennable.
red army generals proletarian swag UNMATCHED
1961: Yuri Gagarin visits a Cuban soldier wounded fighting against American invasion in Playa Girón