Anti-communist fighter pursuing a suspected member of the 'Securitate' secret police, Bucharest, Romania, 1989
Anti-communist fighter pursuing a suspected member of the 'Securitate' secret police, Bucharest, Romania, 1989
You're viewing a single thread.
Commies already downvoting. Typical.
Why indeed would communists downvote an "anti-communist fighter"? Truly a mystery for the ages!
Agatha Christie fans upvoting, typical
People are going to post Félix Rodríguez hagiographies next and then throw a hissy fit if they don't get 100% positive karma.
Tankies try not to support a brutal and massively corrupt dictator who managed to turn the proletariat against him challenge (NEVER BEEN DONE)
brutal and massively corrupt dictator who managed to turn the proletariat against him challenge
Who are you talking about?
... Ceausescu. Who else was dictator of Romania in 1989?
Ion Iliescu?
Wasn't dictator, and didn't come into any significant influence until the last week and a half of 1989.
Wasn’t dictator
Doubt.jpg
the guy who decided that striking workers should be ground under tanks, the origin of tankies
OP said they're talking about Ceausescu, and I can't find information about him being involved in the Hungarian Counterrevolution of 1956.
point is, this applies to basically everyone tankies like
What applies? You make up stories about them and they turn out to be false?
By counterrevolution do you mean the people rising up against an oppressive ruling class that held their country?
Counterrevolution
Big yikes.
It looks like people have forgotten what communism actually is in just 3 decades...
Like actual communism ever existed. What we got were authoritarian dictators that basically ran a kleptocracy and slapped a “communist” or “socialist” label on it. Facets that looked like the labels were lip service or token at best.
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated.
— Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method
"Dr. King's policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none."
— Kwame Ture
The US supported its economic interests first, its ideals a distant second. If you couldn’t support the former you wouldn’t have a hope, and you didn’t understand the US.
supported
proceeds to check news to see if the U.S. has just been dissolved
Yeah, the crimes of the U.S. are always spoken of as history, despite no one ever being held accountable and the existence of a clear throughline from the people and institutions of decades ago to those of today (shit, sometimes it's the exact same people!).
Damn.
No, we had exceptional communism implementation.
you're NEVER going to get "actual communism" because it's an impossible utopian ideology. here's my ideology: everyone becomes a millionaire and drives lambos and fucks 10/10s every day, no poor people, no orphans, no more suffering
communism comes from a lack of knowledge of basic economic principles that are always valid no matter the ideology
It's a great idea in theory, the problem is for every karl marx you've got 20 stalin wannabes and 200 gavrillo princeps
Human history is littered with self interested strongmen who are willing to sacrifice those who disagree with them in their climb to power. More so, there are those who aid and abet them - and we get to experience that in the US now - with reasons varying from prejudice to tribalism to misplaced revenge.
Not a communist, but like you've ever known lol.
It's a pretty big hint you don't live in commie-topia when the glorious leader is feeding orphans blood transfusions from his mega-palace while Nixon assures everyone he's one of the good ones.
the glorious leader is feeding orphans blood transfusions from his mega-palace while Nixon assures everyone he’s one of the good ones
Ooh, do tell me more about this strange land called the US.
I’m not suggesting orphans shouldn’t get blood transfusions if they need them, but this is a really weird image…?!
Trying to tell me Nixon isn't a hero of the proletariat and a generally trustworthy guy??
This might be a bold statement, but I'd even go so far as to say I think he might be a crook!