who is the anti bad thing propaganda poster hurting?

The vast majority believe they are worse off now than under Socialism, which makes sense because the reintroduction of Capitalism resulted in skyrocketing rates of poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, homelessness, and an estimated 7 million excess deaths around the world.

if you gave a shit what they wanted you wouldn’t have overthrown them in a violent coup

I’d say all AES states have broadly managed to achieve their goals. There have been troubles and struggles faced internally and externally, none have been dreamlike utopian wonderlands, but seemingly only non-Marxists are the ones that require that of Marxist movements.

What

Here’s the Pew Research data it draws from.

Human Rights are overall good in China, and improving steadily.

HRW has ties to the US government, is a revolving door, and refuses to critique US foreign policy.

Chinese people are not in constant fear of execution, lmao, that goes directly against polling results from western pollsters:

Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread in China, these findings highlight that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being. Satisfaction and support must be consistently reinforced. As a result, the data point to specific areas in which citizen satisfaction could decline in today’s era of slowing economic growth and continued environmental degradation.

Yes.

I think so, relatively.
Weren’t they better than the Tsarist rule?

Like, public healthcare, education and other policies leading to high literacy rates, longer lifespans, low infant and mother mortality etc.

And if we compare them to the other major powers at the time, aren’t they better than those since they made progress without colonies?

According to American ethnographer and Professor of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania Kristen Ghodsee, efforts to institutionalize the “double genocide thesis”, or the moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and the victims of communism (class murder), in particular the push at the beginning of the 2007–2008 financial crisis for commemoration of the latter in Europe, can be seen as the response by economic and political elites to fears of a leftist resurgence in the face of devastated economies and extreme social inequalities in both the Eastern and Western worlds as the result of the excesses of neoliberal capitalism. She says that any discussion of the achievements by Communist states, including literacy, education, women’s rights, and social security is usually silenced, and any discourse on the subject of communism is focused almost exclusively on Joseph Stalin’s crimes and the “double genocide thesis”, an intellectual paradigm summed up as such: “1) any move towards redistribution and away from a completely free market is seen as communist; 2) anything communist inevitably leads to class murder; and 3) class murder is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust.” By linking all leftist and socialist ideals to the excesses of Stalinism, Ghodsee posits that the elites hope to discredit and marginalize all political ideologies that could “threaten the primacy of private property and free markets”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_genocide_theory#Memory_politics_and_the_Holocaust_in_Eastern_Europe

Indisputably the opposite, the Soviet Union was the first big Socialist state.

you’re just mad they stopped the holocaust

The PRC is more classically Marxist than under the Gang of Four, when they abandoned materialist analysis and attempted to implement Communism through fiat. Large firms and key industries of the PRC are firmly in the public sector, while small firms, cooperatives, and sole proprietorships make up most of the private sector.

Marx didn’t think you could abolish private property by making it illegal, but by developing out of it. Socialism and Communism, for Marx, were about analyzing and harnessing the natural laws of economics moving towards centralization, so as to democratize it and produce in the interests of all. This wasn’t about decentralization, but centralization.

Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can’t just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.

China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.

As for the USSR, its economy worked quite well for most of its existence. I recommend reading Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowens, who goes over what went right and what went wrong in the Soviet Economy, including why it was dissolved. Further, GDP growth was positive throughout the near entirety of its existence, collapsing when it liberalized:

I recommend doing more research on Marixsm and the economies of the PRC and former USSR.

You don’t really have free speech in Capitalism, all of the important media is entirely controlled by private interests to begin with. Further, with what freedoms we do have, why deliberately plug your ears? Do you just want the freedom to ignore inconvenient truths?

What the fuck is up with you people its like you only want to cry about the scary thing you’re so afraid of but won’t read anything about how it may not be so scary

You’re like a child who won’t eat their peas because they are green.

You don’t have free speech either way. And in capitalism you may not even know that you don’t have free speech

I like when nazis don’t have free speech

Removed by mod

See, the problem is that you’re generally wrong, factually, which is why you have such knee-jerk reactions to people saying that maybe AES states aren’t hellholes, actually. As an example, it’s mostly western sanctions that limit freedom of movement from DPRK residents, and the myths about collective family punishment are largely unsubstantiated. Repeating Red Scare myths uncritically is a huge problem.

People can challenge Xi, what they cannot do is use large private media apparatus to push anti-government propaganda.

Regarding your last point, you’re generally wrong. Socialism is increasing in popularity globally, including Marxism-Leninism. Funny enough, Nia Frome, the author of “Marketing Socialism,” has another quick article called “Tankies” that would be perfect for you to read, IMO.

I don’t think you’ve actually backed up your thesis, just asserted it. There’s no evidence to the notion that “power corrupts,” there’s evidence that systems like Capitalism reward corruption.

I think the concept of positive/negative externalities could serve as a north star in deciding the all important question of the appropriate scalevat which a discussion is taken.

While I think we shoild try to empower and give autonomy to the local they always are within a larger community of externalities. The local should also no to inform and defer to a higher scale when their decision is “larger then them”.

The local is not thought as isolated or unaccountable, but it is given preference as a scale. We want the local to choose how to live in harmony with the whole and their neighbours.

All this is well but it would be really easy to fall back into the grooves of individualist isolationnist and collectivist absolutist.

I don’t think the ideal exist at the middle of these extremes but rather toward tge lower scale without bottoming out

The problem arises when people distort quantity or quality of struggles in AES states that would logically exist in any Socialist state. Ie, all Socialist states will have prisons, and all Capitalist countries are going to do their best to portray them in as negative a light as possible, no matter what they look like in reality.

Greed is not an intrinsic human characteristic, as I already explained, and further life under brutal sanctions and embargo is difficult for everyone. The DPRK manages to scrape by with what they can, and which is why lifting the embargo and sanctions is the best thing we can do for the Northern Korean people.

I can’t look at NK because the world capitalist economy isolated them, so I’m not going to argue about their material conditions. I don’t think anyone is immune to greed, but I think having a system that rewards greed is going to turn it from an aberration to an epidemic.

To your first point, let’s pretend you’re right and look at it in the abstract. What is to be done? Do you want to kill greed? How would you do that?

No it doesn’t, the workers who put their labour into profitable companies aren’t rewarded for it

Capitalism doesn’t really exist soley in the micro, you must factor in the macro. A small gorcery store exists in the context of Capitalism, it isn’t Capitalist itself. The purpose of Capitalism systemically is Capital accumulation and the increase in profits through the general process of converting money into commodities, and into a higher quantity of money, thus seeding even more money for more commodoties and even more money after that in an endless loop.