RampageZGaming

I'm not a Maoist, but holy shit are you being delusional.

So what, according to you Ann's entire experience in China was a facade and all of the peasants and workers she lived with were government actors, while the real people of China were in endless suffering at the hands of the evil evil Mao?

I actually have two questions. The first is a reply to this post, and the second is completely unrelated. The first one isn't really that important so if this post seems too long you can skip it if you'd like.

First Question:

I am not still a communist. But I do not think it is inferior to capitalism. I suppose I must be a socialist.

People tend to use wildly different definitions of the words "communist" and "socialist", so I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by this. Saying "I'm a socialist, not a communist" could mean three completely different things:

-"I've become disillusioned with Marxist-Leninist pro-USSR organizations across the world but still believe that the workers of the world will overthrow capitalism and seize the means of production." (This was George Orwell's stance)

-"I no longer believe in any sort of communist theory, but believe that a welfare state is necessary to keep capitalism in check." (This technically makes you a social democrat/progressive and not a socialist, however many people misuse the term "socialist" to mean this)

-"I believe that capitalism will be overthrown and workers will seize the means of production, however I disagree with the Marxist prediction of this eventually leading to a classless, stateless, moneyless society" (This would be literally going off of the academic definitions of socialism and communism)

To clarify, which one do you agree with? Or is it a mixture of the three?

Second question:

In your previous posts, you've expressed nostalgia over the revolutionary periods that communist countries have had, and disdain that said revolutions were sabotaged by authoritarian leaders. I agree with you in that these leaders were not really communist, however recently I've come to disagree with the widely held belief that communist revolutions will always lead to such leaders due to human nature.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that power hungry leaders are a threat to any revolution that attempts large scale societal change, communist or non-communist (Even the French Revolution led to Robespierre and Napoleon). However I believe that the mistakes of the past can indeed be learned from, and even prevented if proper revolutionary tactics are applied.

But enough rambling, on to my actual question. Over the past few years, a revolution has been sprouting among the Kurdish population of Northern Syria that's not unlike the revolutions you've nostalgically grown fond of. The only difference is, they seem to be doing everything "right" in terms of pluralistic organization of power, fair treatment of prisoners, bans on executions, and have been doing pretty much everything else that prevents tyranny. All of this while being one of the strongest fighting forces against ISIS.

They're not explicitly Marxist (although many of their leadership have roots in Marxist movements), but instead espouse an anti-capitalist ideology called "Democratic Confederalism" which is based off of the works of American anarchist Murray Bookchin.

I apologize as it would be very difficult to give all the necessary details about the Rojava revolution and this post would be even longer if I tried.

But based on what I've told you, do you still believe that Rojava will be doomed to fall into tyrannical leadership or do you think they have a chance of success? And, if they continue to be successful, do you think their revolutionary model will spread?

It's clear that you have no idea what the terms "socialism" and "communism" even mean. To be fair though, neither does anyone else in this thread.

The government probably thought she was a spy, do you think they would allow her to wander off on her own and do as she pleases?

By how it sounds, yes, they probably did let her wander off and do as she pleases. I don't think she'd have such a positive view of the revolution if it were a North Korea-like "Guards escorting you around 24/7" type of situation.

Well there are many stories of entire families being dragged out of their houses and shot dead and left on the side of the road.

I don't doubt that such things occurred. After all, such witch hunts have been historically common when it comes to revolutions that totally uproot and change the status quo of society. Just look at what happened during French revolution, after all.

Still, Mao's revolution was popularly supported by the masses. It couldn't have even happened in the first place if it wasn't. /u/ReginaldLADOO is trying to push the narrative that everyone hated Mao and the only reason why /u/AnnTompkins didn't see it that way was because she was sheltered from the truth and the government "wasn't letting her see what was really going on".