HOME | DD
Tomasz96 β Communism
Published: 2012-12-22 21:33:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 7185; Favourites: 46; Downloads: 125
Redirect to original
Description
Main communist concepts contained in the most noticeable sign of this ideology - the sign of Hammer and Sickle. So this is a communism in a nutshell: its ideologists, leaders, slogans and everything connected with it. Comment and download, comrades!Related content
Comments: 21
How can you put "freedom" next to "collectivism" and keep a straight face? Communism is based on "order," not "freedom."
π: 0 β©: 0
Shut up trash commie i bet you think russia is a communist country
π: 0 β©: 0
Communism is the government keeping everything and that being distributed equally to everyone. Don't mind me, that sounds fucking stupid. Basically, communism means the government has all the power to do what ever the fuck they want and withhold power from the people. That is Un-American and not what America and many other countries fought for.
π: 0 β©: 0
No free thinking socialists, only dictators like Stalin, Hoxha and Kim Jong-Il? Nice work though, good cosmetic quality and original idea.
π: 0 β©: 0
What about the famines, domocides, genocides, sovietization, deportations, mass killings, incarcerations without trial, mass rapes, soviet imperialism, social imperialism, oppression and repressions that communism had done to the world ? saint-tepes.deviantart.com/art⦠Are you going to turn a blind eye, deny their existance or blame it on capitalism and fascism ?
π: 0 β©: 0
Assad shouldn't be on the list even if the list is supposed to contain everyone that ever called himself a communist. Because Assad never called himself a communist and never claimed to follow Marxism. He is a member of an "Arab socialist" party, true, but that doesn't mean it's in any way related to Marxism or communism. After all, François Hollande is a member of the Socialist Party in France, too. Does that mean HIS name should be up there?
π: 0 β©: 0
This picture is about communism in general. Both Stalin and Trotsky were communists, but with different views. And it's no doubt that they created two large and influential movements of Marxism.
π: 0 β©: 1
They both claimed they were Communists although they probably would both reject the other's claim, maybe the Khmer Rouge should be added to the list since since practically all the worst leaders to call themselves communist are on the list as well.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, it depends on your views. In fact, Stalin and Trotsky are personalities that you can support for positive sides of them. But Khmer Rouge simply aren't organisation that you can support because they didn't do anything good. And after reading some textes by Khmers I can say that they cannot be called Marxists.
Beside that, did you know that the regime of Pol Pot was overthrown by Chinese and Vietnamese forces and then, the Polpotist partisans were financed by CIA?
π: 0 β©: 1
The Chinese supported the Khmer rouge... as part of anti soviet measures brought about by the sino soviet split (the Khmer Rouge were anti Vietnam, which was a Soviet ally).
So depending on your views you can support Stalin and Trotsky at the same time but you can't support Pol Pot, why not? I'd say Stalin wasn't a Marxist, maybe he wasn't as batshit insane as "brother number 1" but he was damn near close to it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, maybe the word "you can't support Pol Pot" is wrong because nobody can forbid you to do this. In fact, there are many pro-stalinist or pro-trotskyst (trotskist?) groups in the world but there aren't any polpotist.
Maybe you don't like Stalin, but his sympathizers approve him for industrialization, rapid growth, victory over Nazis etc.. They have arguments to support him - that's the point. But if you want to sympathise with Pol Pot - what arguments will you use? His agrarian utopia concepts? I hope I don't need to explain its consequences.
π: 0 β©: 1
I really shouldn't have to tell you that using Pol Pot as an example was Hyperbole, but now that I see that Hoxha is also on the list, which to be fair is totally messed up in it's own right, this whole list is a contradiction in terms.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah, he's a member of Baa'th Party, which ideology is based on Marxism and Arab Socialism. Maybe he's not an orthodox Marxist, but I'm sure that he is a socialist with some concepts taken from Marx.
π: 0 β©: 1
Syria's human rights record is abysmal. Saddam Hussein was in the Ba'ath too, and he killed over two million people. They called him the Butcher of Baghdad for a reason.
π: 0 β©: 1
There is a civil war in Syria now. We should know that no one respects human rights, neither Assad nor rebels. And trust me - the president wants to win the conflict not because he'll remain in power (but it's also a reason) but to prevent the country from chaos and destruction of everything he and his party built.
Your argument about mr Hussein is invalid. Being in Ba'ath party doesn't make that you'll kill people. Saddam commited war crimes against other nations because he was a huge nationalist.
π: 0 β©: 2
Syria's human rights record was terrible before the civil war.
π: 0 β©: 0
What he and his party built was tyranny.
He also killed 2 million of his OWN people. Not very socialist/communist. The Ba'ath is just another twisted and corrupt false socialist body like the Workers' Party of Korea or the Communist Party of China.
π: 0 β©: 0
isnt there suposed to be a star at the top?
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not necessary. There are communist organisations without stars in their flags.
π: 0 β©: 0