Veraticus

Because the people in charge had the equivalent of many degrees in socialism, communism, and Marxism – they had written multiple books on the subject, participated in numerous conferences and lectures, and had spent most of their adult lives practicing and honing these philosophies. Lenin and Stalin believed wholeheartedly they were implementing communism throughout their entire lives and stated so multiple times. So why not call it communism?

They 100% thought they were. Who are you to say otherwise?

That’s not fair! North Korea says it too and they’re at least as trustworthy, unbiased, and honest as Russia!

Hong Kong said it too. Is Hong Kong the CIA?

We’re talking about the tens of millions of peasants who starved to death because Mao didn’t understand agriculture or mechanization.

Your problem is that only tens of millions of people died? Wtf?

Why did you join 9 hours ago only to post extremely right wing and racist content to World News and Memes?

A famous unpolitical moment!

There are only two genders: man and political!

Make your own instance with the politics you want.

There is no such thing as non-political spaces, only spaces where everyone has pre-agreed on what politics are acceptable.

Also: “No diet I’ve ever tried works!”

noo you don’t understand it’s going to the moon noooo hodl hodl hodl nooooooooo plz buy my crypto thank you :(

I too want a post-scarcity luxury space communism utopia. Unfortunately most iterations of communism feel more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic than actually plugging the hole in the fuselage.

found?

Sure.

Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation will probably eradicate polio.

Before people jump on the bandwagon about how Gates is evil and problematic, that there are no virtuous billionaires, and a government or an NGO or an equivalent should have been the one to do it… I know. But the question was “name one billionaire that’s done anything good,” and I think it’s pretty difficult to argue that eradicating polio isn’t good.

You misread what I wrote three times and it’s my problem? You are a complete idiot.

For the third time: this isn’t what I said.

You asked a question and answered it next sentence!

That’s different than what I said though, which is that you can’t disagree with me without reading Gramsci. And is also typically how these authors’ names are invoked in arguments which are not about the authors themselves.

Have you even read Gramsci? You really can’t disagree with anything I say until you’ve read Gramsci. Sorry, I don’t make the rules!

This is why my instance is defederated with them though. It’s just bad faith nonsense all the way down.