What next you’re gonna tell me this quote isnt real? “Socialism is when the government does stuff. And it’s more socialism the more stuff it does. And if it does a real lot of stuff, it’s communism.” - Carl Mark
What’s funny about the Stalin one is that it can very easily be read as a condemnation of the fact that when someone who enjoys some sort of elevated status dies it will be on the front page of every newspaper, while if tons of common people die from preventable causes year after year those same newspapers will do their best to just ignore it.
Fake Marx makes a good point though
Very good point. Sign me up
This is not what Marxists believe. Religion is the opiate of the people, a way to numb suffering in a world full of pain and deprivation. The first requisite to a happy people is improving material conditions. All communist experiments believe this. Religious institutions are a different matter, where states deal with them situationally
I don’t know if the lenin one is real or fake but either way it’s fire
Yeah these quotes always sounded like they came out of the same G.I. Joe figurine.
Are we sure the Lenin one’s not real? Lenin’s plan for defeating the bourgeoisie was, famously, to work within the system to increase taxes through incremental reforms.
Idk if it’s a real quote but I got a new plan, listen: “the way to crush the burgeoise is to grind them.”
Finally, a grindset I can get behind.
“We will wage our revolution by teaching gay in schools and taxing small business owners”
-Ho Chi Minh
I wouldn’t be surprised if Mao really said that, where the quote is taken out of context. https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Oppose_Book_Worship
Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, “Show me where it’s written in the book.” When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from “a higher organ of leadership” but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalist attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.
The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a “prophet” but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalization of mystical notion as that of “prophecy” ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country’s actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation.
How can we overcome book worship? The only way is to investigate the actual situation.
If only Maoists would take Mao’s own advice…
The lab work v field work divide transcends both politics and history.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Is this trolling? I’ve never heard any of these fake quotes.
I mean…I’m sure Che said that tho…
nope, one of his most famous quotes (that this is a corruption of) is:
“At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality.”
from here
The goal of this to show that they are actually good people? Because… showing a few wrongly attributed quotes doesn’t help their image or the historical context.
The goal is to debunk verifiable lies fed to you by the West. The post makes no mention of how good or evil they were, only that they definitely did not say these very specific evil things. If it happens to cause you to reconsider your conclusion that these people are evil, a conclusion also fed to you by the same Western propaganda, that’s your business.
The afterglow of christian domination over western thought can be seen in the way our first and most important learned behavior is to separate “good people” from “bad people” as if anyone is purely one or the other, as if these are categories that carry any meaning of their own, and as if what makes a person helpful or harmful, kind or malicious, is some kind of innate essence and not a combination of their circumstances, intent, position and effectiveness.
But also look at this picture of Ho Chi Minh
this should be an album kover
what level of brain rot is this, oh wait lemmy.world, that explains things
It’s so bad, it’s become a gut reaction at this point.
- person says something anti communist
- checks instance
- huh .world again
But seriously if we want liberals to actually become socialists making fun of them is the worst way to do this.
You’re right that mockery is a terrible way to convert anyone. I think the real issue is that you’re not going to reach everyone, and that means we have to be strategic about where we put our energy. When someone is genuinely asking questions or wrestling with ideas in good faith, that’s where patient, respectful dialogue is essential.
But a huge amount of online discourse isn’t that. It’s just bad faith concern trolling, sealioning, or just repeating liberal pieties. Engaging with that on its own terms is a trap because it wastes time and gives legitimacy to arguments designed to waste our time.
A sharp dismissal or ridicule draws a clear line, shows others they don’t have to entertain every bad argument, and prevents the conversation from being derailed. The target is the audience, not the provocateur. So while it’s useless for persuasion, I’d argue that it has a role in defining the boundaries of the discussion.
I will say the dismissiveness to an outside viewer can come across very poorly as well. I agree with your stance overall though, if nothing else it gets frustrating to argue with bad-faith or closed-minded people and can be liberating to tell them off, outside viewers would then just likely fall along the side they already had tho.
Yeah, you kind of have to play it by ear. I find a big red flag is when somebody just starts regurgitating well known tropes that have been discussed to death. That’s usually a clear sign they’re just here to stir shit up.
The only way to reach westerners is on the other side of a crisis that affects them personally. Anyone who can see the malicious cruelty of everyday life in America as well as the huge misery they export everywhere else and either pretend they don’t know or shrug it off ain’t gonna be converted by morality or reason, they’re gonna be reached once it happens to them or the handful of people they might actually care about.
I personally try to be helpful and nicer when somebody’s shown genuine curiosity or naive misguidedness. We’ve all been there at one point. But there’s far too many who are just parroting the US line as if it were gospel and I don’t think ridiculing them is even the worst option.
Imagine being the hostile to countering lies
I think the point is, don’t trust what anti-communists claim they said; read what they actually said.
