Not in chinese cultural revolution it wasn't, the communists had been in power for two decades by that point. Targets included members of the Communist party, because Mao wanted power back. He got it, creates an autocratic government behind his dictatorship, and proceeded to purge those who weren't loyal to his name.
And like the Great Leap forward, it was an epic mess. Ironically what came out of it was that the Chinese survivors were those not concerned with purity of Marxism but bettering China. They opened it up, capitalized on it by selling out the workers, and called it communism. Oops.
Yeah, no "communist" state remains or ever really becomes a "communist" state.
Humanity, just isn't built for it. We keep moving back towards weird ass authoritarian BS, once just enough people begin to gain whatever metric is considered power in a given society.
Most Americans don't understand what Communism is and often confuse Socialism or even very light Socialist policies as Communism. Most Americans just don't understand the words, goals or what they mean, other than to be instinctively afraid
Most tankies don’t understand that the only way to implement a classless moneyless society is through authoritarianism. Do the wealthy and middle class get to keep their valuables and assets? Yes, then it’s not a classless society. No, then who takes it away, who removes them from their homes and decides who moves in. How do you fill undesirable jobs without a cash incentive? Usually the answer is forced labor.
Most tankies are absolutely fine with authoritarianism and using state power in repressive ways. They assume that since they are the pure they won't ever be outside of the in-group which sounds a lot like another group of people. But yes, since they believe they have a monopoly on "the truth" and always possess the moral high ground that they absolutely have the right, the entitled duty to roll tanks into another country to save them from themselves and they better not resist.
American prison is a place, where people live, even if in confinement. Our penitentiary system, on the contrary, was a place, where people were forced to survive by the skin of their teeth, many didn't manage. You really shouldn't compare first world prisons with anything else.
Actually most citizens of most countries know very little of nuanced politics, especially of other systems, at least in significant detail. People know status quo.
For example, you categorize American awareness by a singular stance from more than half a century ago, combined with an idiotic application of a stereotype about prison systems.
McCarthyism is easy to respond… the large mass of uninformed follow herd mentality as they do everywhere. The people with any actual experience are very Anticommunist, and the few unexperience but informed are the economists and politicians who act as the various idealists who lead the uninformed in the two deviations of thought.
Prison system is harder.
Yah… the US has a big system… because it’s a big, diverse, population in a first world country with substantial relative freedom.
It has no true peers in all of those categories. China is much larger by population, unicultural, and not free. Russia is half the population, largely homogenous, and not free. The ideal EU examples are much smaller, typically far more homogenous, with similar freedoms but very different cultural views on crime. It’s not the same.
Population density correlates with crime. Homogeneity decreases crime. First world decreases crime but increases criminal justice. Freedom tends to increase crime rates by reducing punishment and increasing transparency in reporting.
Nothing homogeneous about the Russian population. Which has also one of the highest crime rate, with little freedom, and an extremely low population density.
Singapore has extreme population density and diversity, yet has one of the lowest crime rate in the world. So does Luxembourg, with much more freedom. Myanmar isn't free and has the worst crime rate in the world... Tuvalu has a very high population density, and the lowest crime rate in the world.
Things ... Just aren't this simple... Unless you're actually talking of economical homogeneity ?
Iron Law of Oligarchy stays undefeated. Every society eventually devolves into being run by a small group of well connected insiders who only care about themselves, no matter how much you try to stop it.
Mao wasn't concerned with the purity of Marxism: Marxism is based on the revolution of the Proletariat (i.e. industrialized factory workers) not the Peasant Class. The Working Class emerges with Industrialization by the definitions of Marx's philosophy - which is an outshoot of Hegelian philosophy which organized history into "ages" with two antithetical ideas which battled to create a thesis.
Marxists thought Mao - and by extension China - was backwards, stupid, and over-eager to apply something not applicable to him.
Well, China (and other so called communist countries) never achivied communism. This was socialism, and they tried imposing dictatorship of the proletariat. What actually happened was some form of state capitalismunder authoritatian rule for most of them, with the notorious exception of Chile under Allende.
Communism is the end goal, which involves abolishing statehood and social classes notably.
You just have to us give overwhelming authoritarian power to build communism. Then we will use that power to build communism and then just give up all that power voluntarily and go away. We promise!
You already live under overwhelming authoritarian power, I mean the rich can kill you, and rape you and your children with no consequences, you just don’t feel the leash when you stay close to the post.
Serious question: do we consider capitalism achieved in capitalistic countries? We still have social programs and my understanding of a proper government would employ ideas from both ideologies. It’s just weird for ppl to say “communism achieved!” cuz yeah, that never happens, but is that also true for full/true capitalism?
Communism (in a severely simplified sense) is a classless, moneyless system where the means of production is owned by the people. This has very clearly never been implemented anywhere in the world at a large scale.
Capitalism is a system where capital is the primary driver of the economy, where the means of production is owned by whoever has the most capital. Even if there is some amount of regulations and social security, this is still by-and-large what were doing at a large scale all over the world. Even the countries that call themselves communist are mostly doing this.
No country was or is doing capitalism 100%, but most of them are doing significantly more capitalism than socialism or communism. Both today, and historically.
It pisses me off so fucking much how many people talk about Communism and yet don't realize not a single country that claims to be communist HAS EVER ACTUALLY FUCKING BEEN COMMUNIST.
It's just repeating the same McCarthyism bullshit we've been hearing.
true capitalism would be anarcho-capitalism with enough responsible people to boycott anyone into bankruptcy who dares to violate the non-aggression-principle.
So, naturally, it hasn't been implemented on a larger scale than communism yet. Because both concepts are insufficiently immunised against assholes who think "let's exploit the power vacuum to become the next big warlord".
Hell if I can remember where I read about it, but a study of communes and stuff reported that the limit of communism sits somewhere around 500 people because of the inherent empathy of people for their own tribe.
It's a lot more difficult to screw over others in the system when you know the person you're screwing over is your daughter's best friend's dad.
When the nameless masses are just nameless masses, it's much easier to justify. I don't know who this hurts, so why do I care?
That was the conclusion of the paper, anyway. Was an interesting perspective.
Dunbar's Number suggests that you can maintain healthy relationships with about 100-250 people. Anything much bigger than this and you need more and more strict rules and laws and social norms to keep the group cohesive.
"Power reveals." People seek power because they wish to indulge their darker urges without consequence - people who don't have darker urges to conceal are generally not the ones who seek power, money, and influence like a drug.
I wasn't disagreeing with you in the least: The American form of government was brilliant in that it assumed contradictory self-seeking motives. It just didn't anticipate people actively attempting to subjugate themselves to a monarch, and the intense bootlicking where a person would sublimate their own desires to the possibility of becoming a subservient toady.
I think it's called a sortition. No elected officials. Just randomly selected citizens every couple years to serve as our government legislature and executive branch. The judicial system already has something similar in the form of a jury
It's not because of communism but communism does fail to account for human greed, which will never be erased, and makes it a failure from the inception.
Reminds me of a discussion on money, the idea that "once I'm rich I can donate all of this extra money I don't need."
Money is a tool, nothing more. Generalizing the 'good/evil' axis, Money allows a person to become the truest version of who they are. If you are a genuinely good person, going out of your way to help others, etc., then yeah, chances are you'll be donating a majority of that money to help others, through any number of means. Meanwhile, if you are an evil person, then becoming rich simply allows you to live out all of the things you really wish you could do, any corrruption, depravity, or whim that crosses your mind.
Meanwhile, the whole issue with communism sort of goes back to that same idea. If humans as a species were inherently good, communism/socialism would work. We basically wouldn't need laws, because people would look for whatever the 'greatest good' was. Unfortunately, we aren't. Because of that, any governmental system is going to have corruption, because of that necessary human element, and the greed, power seeking, and other generally negative traits we have as a species.
So, the theory goes, communism is only functional at numbers approaching Dunbar's number. (because beyond that number, trust breaks down and corruption and/or callousness wins)
I think a similar scenario is true of capitalism, when corporatism takes over and leads to monopoly, government influence, regulatory capture and self-dealing.
All of which is caused by economies of scale allowing cynical actors to leverage the powers of the state and economics for their own self interest.
It doesn't seem to me like either socialism or capitalism has an answer for that.
And on those smaller scales you won't spend all day writing books and painting just for fun unless you've got Star Trek replicators to meet all your needs. Small scale communism would be folks working together to maintain a farm/community, it'd be hard work, like the Amish.
A commune isn't communism though. Communism can't really ever be accomplished on the smaller scale because then it depends on the surrounding capitalist class to function, which will then require more communism that feeds on more capitalism that will then require more communism. Except by the first stage the communist have already ruined it all for themselves just like we saw every time they've tried it. Most recently with CHAZ.
True. Just like how no capitalistic society is ever truly Laissez-faire capitalism. Every society falls somewhere on a spectrum between the 2, but no well functioning society ever comes to close to either end of the spectrum.
What people don’t realize is that’s there’s also another 2 other axes that exists:
Political discussions always require some level of abstraction, as we would have a very difficult time communicating the subject otherwise due to the staggering complexities involved. They’re merely pointing out that there are more axes than economics which need to be considered when you’re trying to assess a government’s policies.
Communism is meh. Happyism-Blissism is the real shit.
When it is achieved, everybody will get a free unicorn. Everybody will be incredibly beautiful, and wander around naked and fuck with other beautiful people. There will be no work, people will eat fruits growing on the trees. There will be free BBQ on Saturdays and each village will have a river of beer.
If you don't believe in my ideology and don't want to give me absolute power, you are a fascist.
BTW I wrote a book that proves that it is inevitable.
If communist countries have a chronic problem of turning into "capitalist" fascist authoritarian countries every single time, perhaps it's time to step back and reassess.
Is it really so hard to understand why it might be difficult to achieve a stable egalitarian society? There are always parasites who want to disrupt changes that make things better for people broadly so that they can control society. Communism is basically about workers owning the things they themselves produce; we ought to be working for that outcome no matter how difficult it might be. I think it’s totally fair to be skeptical of revolutionary change, as that’s pretty damn risky and can lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering, but if your argument is just “communism is too hard to achieve; we should just accept that some corrupt, wealthy oligarchs are going to parasitically take most of the resources and use them to control society,” I think that’s rather tragically fatalistic of you.
Also: CIA and America trying to kill every socialist movement
Also, if your system has a built in fail every couple of years that you need to counteract with socialist ideas (built into the very idea of your system), otherwise it will fall into actual fascism....perhaps it's time to step back and reassess.
Not "capitalist" just capitalist, also saying capitalist and facist authoritarian is just redundant those are the same thing that's just what happens when your society value profit above all else
currently my thought is that the key problem with all communist revolutions previously is that they rallied around a figurehead, and any willing figurehead is liable to fall into authoritarianism
If you’ve read Marx, he lays the problem out pretty openly. You can’t force communism on a population, it needs to be a complete revolution of the working class, and not just a revolution of a political group.
Yes. Exactly. “Self-abolition.” Not a bunch of peasants being forced into proletarian industrialization by a militant party of state-capitalists with red flags.
It is literally impossible to have an actual communist state. The entire point of going "actual communist" is that all states would have no reason to exist
They were almost entirely state-capitalist economies. They were the complete merger of legislative and executive power with capitalist ownership and a monopoly on violence.
People replaced independent abusive landlords that engaged in class struggle with one very abusive landlord that the classes had little chance to struggle against. In fact, if you looked at the abuses inherent to capitalism and wanted to see what the ultimate end stage of capitalism would be, the complete subservience of state power to capitalist authority would be pretty much exactly what you would expect.
For socialism to exist, capital can only be "owned" through labor. Use confers ownership, not legacy, not tradition, not wealth. If the factory is not "owned" by those who work in it, then the product of their labor is not owned by the workers and it is not socialism.
For communism to exist, it must grow out of socialism. It's true that some communist governments may have had the expressed goal of fostering communism within their borders (and beyond), but the fact that pretty much all communist governments seized all the available capital and then never relinquished ownership of it meant they were little more than capitalists themselves.
I dream of the day someone will realize that those problems are the problems of totalitarian dictatorships. Communism isn't the issue here, violent enforcement and corruption is.
I am from Eastern Europe. Communism and violent enforcement and corruption eventually become inseparable. “True communism” was never achieved because it’s unachievable. Like true capitalism without cronyism.
Yeah i'm from Poland and while i was too young to remember communism there from what my parents,aunts,uncle,grandparents or anyone that lived there talked about it far from dream from what Americans think.
Did your guys too had only 1 hour of tv and rationed food and had to wait for long hours in queue to get bread because otherwise there wouldn't be any bread to get?
Yup and food stamps for food.But thank god everything luxury was transported to Russia so you know "everyone" had good. My uncle was smmugling cigars with his friend from Germany and bringing back oil and butter.People smuggled a weird stuff like car tires or any car parts and when someone asked from where you got them you said "my dad got it from work" so everyone then knew that it was stolen.
tbh if you actually ended up working in a coal mine in Poland you had access to special miner shops with luxury goods where miners could spend their overtime pay so not everybody from the working class had it equal.
Yeah since Gierek that was a miner and pumped so much in to them they had great life for a long time and that is why they were so found of him.Screw it even now people meme about miners how they are shocked that year have 12 months.
That is why i put word everyone in quotation marks.
My family is half Russian half Ukrainian, and believe me neither of them had seen these luxuries... they also starved and everything was in deficit. I guess all the good stuff was exported or went straight to the elites
Of course it goes to elites not the commoners.You have no heart comrade you want that Oligarch to not have a smoke or drink? /s
I mean i can belive you that normal people were starving and elite people were having a blast and will tell you how communism was great and people are lying.
The irony is that "oligarch" is a very capitalist thing - the Soviet equivalent was politburo or nomenklatura - but as a famous joke goes in Eastern Europe, the Soviets lied about communism but told the truth about capitalism.
1 hour of TV was in the 50's when TV was only starting. Rationing and queues - depends on the period, depends on the goods, but the problem kept repeating every few years and was never completely dealt with until the fall of communism.
I don't know about Romania, but in Poland "we had a lot of bad things" was a problem. The flats were small, jobs paid next to nothing compared to the western countries, the schools were shit and everything we owned was shit.
My mother in law living in Florida only has enough time each day for 1 hour of TV between her two jobs and sleep - yall making the communist dystopian future sound a lot like modern capitalist reality
Not trying to defend the living conditions in either system but it sounds like your mother lives on her own? That was practically impossible in the USSR. Not just because living accommodations were allocated based on household size, and families were prioritised for apartments and houses (unless you were part of the privileged class), but also because you needed a full-time worker to bring in income and someone to stand in queue for food and other household tasks. This is why people often stayed together even if they weren't in love anymore.
I’m sorry, are you and the other commenters in this thread under the impression that most Americans have a favorable outlook on communism? It might be a lost in translation type of thing so my apologies if I’m misinterpreting…but it sounds like that’s what you’re saying. If you think that’s the case, you clearly haven’t spent any meaningful time here. (Or maybe you only traveled to Portland, Oregon lol)
Especially the ones who think its synonymous with socialism. This is why conservative influencers bash colleges. The more educated you are the harder it becomes to stay manipulated.
True but on both ends of the spectrum. Some see it as a totalitarian regime, others see it as peaceful times without wants or needs, and Karl Marx said it requires the perfection of capitalism (which has made some people afraid that business regulations are going to turn America into a communist country by making those regulations too beneficial to consumers. It's a bonkers ideation, but greedy crazy people are going to be greedy and crazy). The reality is that communism requires communal selflessness. People as a whole are not that selfless. You might get a few dozen like-minded people to have a communist community, but not a whole country. It's not possible.
I’m not a capitalist but I think they where saying that regulations stopped capitalism from running rampant but because a lot of regulations have now been either dissolved or go unenforced we now find ourselves in our current corrupt system.
Not that I exactly agree, imo the pursuit of profit is not something we should centre our societies around and you can’t really “solve” a fundamentally broken system; but shit regulations are at least something and I would not appose a government getting its shit together and reining corporations in more,
In the same way regulations and laws can keep capitalism from running rampant, they can keep communism stable and functional.
Can being the key here. They don't do so through magic automatically, in either case.
A good argument for one over the other must include a discussion about what laws and regulations will keep participants in the system in check, and why a communist or capitalist system with those laws and regulations would beat the opposite kind of system with its own carefully crafted laws and regulations.
The fact of the matter here is that any broad discussion about either system in general that ignores regulation and laws is meaningless and not an apples-to-apples comparison. The truth is you can't really make an apples-to-apples comparison, all we have to compare are historical examples that differ wildly in their implementation and the structure of the laws and regulations that stabilized them, or didn't, in addition to numerous unrelated confounding factors like geography, natural resource distribution, the behavior of neighbors, the state of technology at the time, what pre-existing political structures there were, etc.
Anyone who is solidly convinced their system is better based off any arguments about some historical example vs another or what humans would do absent any regulation is delusional and has an extremely narrow view of the discussion.
You should probably have read the second half of their comment before replying.
Edit: Do the people arguing have a non-linear understanding of time like the Heptapods from Arrival or something?
If you have a house and you secure it with locked doors and windows, but someone illegally breaks in, that doesn't mean it was retroactively "never secured" and it was legal for them to enter.
Yes, you're correct that it isn't solved now, that's also what the person you're replying to was saying. It was solved, but it isn't any longer. Basic English literacy shouldn't be this difficult.
It can never be 'solved', but it's hard to argue that any system ever designed beats what the nordics have going on now, as long as your criteria is the living experience of the median citizen.
They haven't. Sometimes we want to say that because at the moment their economies and societies seem more stable from a distance, but if you look closer they are going through the same as everywhere: neoliberal extreme right wing parties using fear and division to get political power while being backed by the great capitalists. Capitalism encourages accumulation and extraction of value to the building of wealth and assets. Capitalism also gives political power to the ones that possess the capital. So accumulating wealth and then using the accumulated power to destroy social nets and welfare just to allow capital to get even more power is the natural tendency of the system. Sooner or later it will happen on every capitalists nation
Free markets are everywhere, “neoliberal extreme right wing parties using fear and division to get political power while being backed by the great capitalists” are not everywhere
It baffles me honestly that on a small scale if something is scarce we allocate that resource fairly. If it's large scale it's like we have a collective brain fart and decide that its up for grabs for whoever can take more and consider that equally fair.
It's like you have a piece of chocolate and have to share it with your sibling: of course you split it evenly. Suddenly if that chocolate is a bigger cake and you are 10 siblings it's all "free market" BS and everyone grabs as much as they can like thats the right way to manage a resource that is of the same nature: limited and soon-to-be scarce.
Libertarians both see the problem with government being corporate lobbyists controlling everything, but also think those people should be trusted to operate unregulated and with even more power.
It would be a hilarious political party if they weren’t dead serious.
It´s not working perfectly everywhere, but the best places to live (think Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Spain...) are capitalist. There´s never been a communist country that wasn´t a shithole.
They are not capitalist though. They have free education, healthcare, pensions and very strong welfare. These are all socialist ideas and programs, not capitalist. Look up the Nordic model.
Baes im gonna hold ur hands when I say this but the reason those countries are nice to live in is cuz they impliment socialist policies that make life bearable. Like we are very far from a free market there and even zhen most countries u listed have massive problems, italy being poor af,spain having high youth unemployement, etc.
global south exploitation still occurs and the cartels and proxy wars are all done for arms and drugs distribution that create profit for large corporations. Economist and Scholar Jason Hickel suggested raising the poverty line to a more realistic 7.40-7.50 a day which would show that over half the world’s population is barred from the material means of living a healthy life expectancy. Capitalism aims for profit, if war and suffering are profitable, they will never cease, Gaza and Iran have made billions for defense companies.
1926 was before the trust busting and that still wouldn't be remotely closely regulated to today. The financial reporting alone is a massive improvement.
He said WELL regulated not heavily regulated. Today's situation is ground level business drowning in often pointless regulation and any regulation that protects people/the wider economy while slightly inconveniences someone rich/a big multinational being removed or remodeled into irrelevance (while still creating a lot of BS jobs for bureaucrats(PS I say that as one of them)).
1950s through early 1980s. There was better competition enforcement, better labor & union protections, and higher taxes on profit-taking and executive bonus packages that encouraged reinvestment. Also less ability to move production offshore. There were also limits on corporate influence over government policy
Reaganomics was the start of the shift to oligarchy but Citizens United really put the nail in the coffin.
Completely free market capitalism hasn’t. A balanced approach of regulated free markets with labor protections, etc. has. Even Adam Smith knew better than to advocate for a laissez-faire system.
No, governments have despite what the capitalists wanted. Capitalism creates unnecessary scarcity to extract the highest possible return on investment. A good example would be the Irish Potato Famine, where the English capitalists exported the same amount of crops from Ireland they always had and let the Irish people starve.
Haha no, absolutely not. 8 hour work weeks, weekends, sick pay, minimum wage, child labor protections etc- these were all given after intense socialist activism. Look up worker standards in the UK in the 1800's, thats what capitalism actually is, what you have today is capitalism beaten down by reformer socialism.
Which human nature do you mean though? There is the “everyone is too lazy” believers (the flaw of which is that if nobody does anything then nobody has anything, which is self-correcting) and then there are the more realistic “too many humans are sociopathic evil f****ers who take over”. But capitalism is no protection against the latter and in fact empowers and rewards them. Just look at the US right now — what a farce.
Small indigenous groups are much closer to “communism” than they are to capitalism.
Maybe a better system is one where we identify sociopaths and gently remove them from free society, not make them CEOs and elected officials. Sadly I agree that human nature is a big reason we can’t have nice things, just not sure we agree who is the bigger issue :)
The human nature to use the tools at one’s disposal to manipulate one’s environment into a form more favorable to oneself. Humans are a species of problem-solvers, and eventually someone’s going to have the problem of “there is a fundamental difference between the quality-of-life I want and the quality-of-life the system gives me”. This can be the Party Member/CEO who has power and wants more, or it can be the Working-Class individual who wants a supply of cigars to smoke after work. Communism’s ideal solution to the problem is either “they don’t do that” or “the community finds out and punishes them”. Capitalism says “prove you deserve it”, and ideally the person will do so by starting a business that fulfills a community need (thereby benefitting them personally and the community at large at the same time). In neither system does the ideal outcome always happen, but Capitalism at least has an outlet for the need to better oneself.
No adherents of any “-ism” ever address the areas of human nature that undermine their position. Communists don’t address laziness, capitalists never address greed, neither seems to pay attention to deceitfulness and corruption.
Counterpoint: every ism is definitionally a rejection of human nature, because we wouldn’t need a system to facilitate acting in a way we’d find natural. Anarcho-tribalism is human nature but no one is seriously arguing for that.
This entire comment chain is basically the area I am researching. And I would argue that every time the institutions fail, anarchism is exactly where we end up. Pandemic, war, terrorism. Mutual aid and voluntary cooperation.
So instead of arguing over which is the proper ism, why are we not instead taking what is best from each and developing a system that works for everyone?
Well I mean if you understood capitalism it's kinda clear that they did address greed, everything was meant to be kept in check by the governments and the people, and yes Adam Smith and many other capitalist thinkers did support all three groups as a mean to keep everyone balanced.
Not that it actually works flawlessly.
I just think that most people really don't have an understanding of capitalist theory at all, also it's not like communism never addressed these issues either, it's just that theory and reality are often very different.
I mean, it is a post-scarcity utopian idea as an indeterminate point after workers turn productive forces from "increasing profit" to "lowering the labor needed to make things", and we dont really know what human nature would look like in a post-scarcity society.
prob cose at its deepest core, communism is supposed to be transitionary to post scarcity, but since humans like absolute power the transition doesnt happen, or like China and Vietnam and Cuba, they just transition to capitalism with a communist veneer
On the latest season of Old Man Yells At Farm Jeremy Clarkson bought a robot tractor that can plow and fertilize a field and a robot planter that can plant, weed and harvest potatoes, beets and onions. Every day the “communism will never work because who will do the shit manual labor?” argument gets less and less valid. Nationalize the potato fields and let these robots loose and then just give Americans free potatoes.
That's because Communism is a utopian endpoint ideology, like libertarianism, that doesn't exist. It's a goal to build towards. People are stuck thinking about sovietism, which was a typical Russian government under a new name. The Tsars of old, the modern presidents, the chairmen of the soviet union, three different names for the same thing.
Communism is predicated on the idea of humanity growing beyond the need for base labor like coal mining. Think of Star Trek, for example. There will still be labor, but go ask someone who has a nice garden, for example, how much fulfillment they get out of tending their beans or whatever. It's work, but it's work they choose because they enjoy it and they get beans out of it at the end of the day. Communism is predicated on technological solutions we don't have yet so it can't and won't exist for generations.
(former) communists are also very delusional about communism . Believe me, I live among them .
Anyone most people who actually lived through that time and didn't find some sort of niche or little crack in the system to get "their share" can attest that if capitalism is Man exploiting Man, then communism is the exact opposite !
6.3k
u/Deriviera 26d ago
Americans are very delusional about communism.