159

submitted 9 months ago by comrade_pibb@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Zuzak@hexbear.net 84 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I do self-criticism constantly because I’m trapped in a MAGA cult where patriots (white terrorists) criticize me mercilessly for having a communist credit card (VISA Silver Signature Rewards)

They won’t let me order meatlover's pizza anymore because the phone is Chinese and “relying on others to deliver pizza with a communist app” is “woke”

[-] Acute_Engles@hexbear.net 34 points 9 months ago

mao-clap

[-] DornerStan@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 9 months ago

perfection

[-] ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net 24 points 9 months ago

chefs-kiss

[-] MemesAreTheory@hexbear.net 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Is this antithesis? Or synthesis? Someone get Hegel on the discord I've got questions hegel-kraken

[-] Comrade_Mushroom@hexbear.net 67 points 9 months ago

"state power as a means to reshape society"

Viewing this as a bad thing is a glaring admission that you already don't think of your governing entity as something which is in the service of the people it governs; like shouldn't you want your leaders to be pulling society in a positive direction, if you believe that's the point of this dogshit system? And if not, what are you suggesting instead, mother fucker?
The state already has its tendrils in fucking everything, not just in this society but in all societies, it's fucking obvious and blatant as shit dude, I swear I will never understand people who will watch like The Bourne Identity or whatever and be like "dang the US government is fucked up and scary!" and then once they shut the TV off they're like "dang I sure hope the US government beats the evil Chinese dictatorship!"

[-] CupcakeOfSpice@hexbear.net 38 points 9 months ago

I think a lot of conservatives have this idea that the state, on average, is corrupt and wicked, and the force acting towards society's betterment is actually the corporations. When I was more in that world, they would talk about the government pushing 'political correctness' and some weak businesses were caving (like when Burger King did that rainbow burger special; that was a big deal to people around me) but brave business leaders who took a stand against this were the ones improving society. But they had a lot of other contradictory beliefs about the state. Like, the Patriot Act is an invasion of privacy, but it stops terrorists and if I have nothing to hide... Or the government is corrupt and evil, but if I vote hard enough maybe that'll fix it. I'm starting to realize the people around me have not incorrect politics, but completely incoherent ones.

[-] miz@hexbear.net 51 points 8 months ago

[-] XxFemboy_Stalin_420_69xX@hexbear.net 12 points 8 months ago

engrave this image on my tombstone

[-] Rom@hexbear.net 39 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

My favorite are the "the second amendment is there in case of government tyranny" folks who lose their minds the moment you suggest shooting at cops, who are the very definition of tyrannical government.

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 13 points 8 months ago

That one’s wild to me. Bc it’s not even like they rationalize individual cases of what the cops were doing, they’re horrified by the concept of shooting at cops at all, ever, and it’s like who do you think does the tyranny??

[-] Thordros@hexbear.net 59 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Some lanyard dork saw a JDPON Don meme, thought it was a real and sincere political movement, then wrote this article.

[-] Mindfury@hexbear.net 29 points 9 months ago

Proof that slammer owns the lathe

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 58 points 9 months ago

Critical support if they start killing landlords

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 12 points 8 months ago

Trump will be The One Landlord

[-] simontherockjohnson@lemmy.ml 47 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This is completely in line with other Westernized Maoist movements that simply become cults. Mao and Trotsky are at such a strong nexus of crank magnetism in the West it's unreal.

Though to be fair if you read the actual criticisms they're made by mouth breathers. Trump blubbering about price controls = Maoism according to a Tweet that gets reposted as a Axios story. At least Gonzalo terrorized his own acolytes, this is just lib journalists trying to figure out a hot take angle that resonates.

[-] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 21 points 8 months ago

Yeah, it's always the same thing with these sort of articles. They say "Maoism" but instead of a cult in the woods or a guerrilla movement, they just mean "evil Authoritarian, just like Mao!"

[-] simontherockjohnson@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago

cult in the woods or a guerrilla movement

Porque no los dos?

[-] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

porky-happy : “I will raise my prices, they haven’t gotten any better and costs really haven’t increased. I just want more money, mwa ha ha!”

mccrucified : “Idk bro, that’s low even for me.”

porky-scared-flipped : “buh..buh…buh….that’s STEALING! What is this, Soviet China?”

The cool zone is going to get even worse if Republicans are getting slapped with cries of class warfare from the porks.

[-] AernaLingus@hexbear.net 41 points 9 months ago

embraces state power as a way to shape society

Doing anything other than tweaks at the margins is literally 1984

[-] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 17 points 8 months ago

Think of the Price Stabilité! sunday-friend

[+] Parsani@hexbear.net 34 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] prole@hexbear.net 10 points 8 months ago

Why do you think LLMs use a lot of em dashes if not because the data they are trained on uses a lot of em dashes? And if the data they are trained on uses a lot of em dashes, wouldn't you expect to see a lot of em dashes in articles?

[-] AernaLingus@hexbear.net 10 points 8 months ago

That's just how all Axios "articles" are written—one of the founders said he wanted it to be a "mix between The Economist and Twitter."^[I grabbed this quote from Wikipedia, and out of curiosity I checked out the source for more context, where the author says about another founder, "This is best exemplified by Allen’s credulous approach to journalism. His proudly nonpartisan stance (he claims to have no ideology, and I absolutely take his word for it) [...]". If you read the rest of an article, you'll see that the author's idea of "ideology" is party politics, which completely ignores that the most pernicious acts of the state are bipartisan, and somehow the founders' naked ambition to make fistfuls of cash by pandering to advertisers does not qualify as "ideology". This is what Western journalists actually believe lmao]

Here's a random article from 2019 to illustrate:

https://www.axios.com/2019/05/19/ice-nominee-mark-morgan-emails-trump

[-] FidelChadstro@hexbear.net 32 points 9 months ago

They just can't bring themselves to make a comparison to fascism so they spin this yarn instead

[-] dannoffs@hexbear.net 31 points 9 months ago

MAOGA is right there.

[-] Zuzak@hexbear.net 29 points 9 months ago

MAWOOOGA awooga

[-] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 27 points 8 months ago

What the fuck lmao

[-] onwardknave@hexbear.net 7 points 8 months ago

World class understanders, clearly.

[-] Lussy@hexbear.net 22 points 9 months ago

STOP IT YOU FUCKS rage-cry

lib rag comissions its best artist and headline writer to make Trump look fucking sick

[-] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 18 points 8 months ago

I wish libs understood literally anything. The excesses of the Cultural Revolution weren't due to top-down tyranny, but from a tyranny of structurelessness.

But reality doesn't confirm to their "anything I don't like is communism, which is when state do bad thing" understanding of the world. So they ignore it.

[-] comrade_pibb@hexbear.net 6 points 8 months ago

Can you expand on the idea of "tyranny of structurelessness"? Sounds interesting

[-] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 18 points 8 months ago

The phrase was coined in this article by Jo Freeman who was criticizing individualist Anarchist influenced trends in the feminist movement, in the 70s. It spawned a whole series of interesting debates among Marxist and Anarchist feminists at the time.

Basically, the idea is that organizations without sufficient structure to guide them, will develop informal leadership that winds up unaccountable.

So when I use that phrase to describe the Cultural Revolution, I'm saying that, because there was this Hyper-skepticism towards party structures and authority (“Bombard the headquarters", etc.) that various personalities or idealist errors could just swoop in and catch people up in these wild frenzies.

like University students getting in knife fights over the correct Marxist theory of art. Or believing that a person having bourgeois parents makes them also bourgeois by some transitive property, regardless of their actual material conditions or relations to production.

Just bizzare and unproductive shit that the cultural revolution was supposed to prevent, but ended up facilitating. Like, the underlying ideas of cultural revolution, that class struggle persists under Socialism, and that lingering Superstructural ideas can lead to negative outcomes, all make sense. But the implementation in China was a bit of a hot mess.

[-] simontherockjohnson@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yes and no.

The development of bloodline theory was spontaneous and organic. However it's ability to be enforced came from Mao's approval and reaction to the Loyalist Red Guards actions during the cultural revolution. Mao's reform campaigns had a problem that they were so simplified for peasants, that they could be interpreted in various anti-socialist ways. It's a similar problem to the USSR's New Soviet Man and de-kulakization, except like you mention way more grass roots and bottom up. In the USSR you can blame the party's management for "kulak" becoming an abstract label meaning "enemy" however in China the same issue with "bourgeoisie" came more from peasants interpretations of Mao's directives.

However the Party did in fact empower these things. I think the issue with Mao's handling of the cultural revolution was an issue of uniting such a large varied country under a brand new set of principles. The CPC essentially did not know how much would "take".

Chen Boda was the first party leader to actually go against the bloodline theory, and that happened fairly early on in its development AFAIR, like within a year or two.