Red Pill me on the Red Guard

Did they really kill 6 gorillion innocents? Torture and beat teachers? Burn libraries?

Did they really Send all the engineers and mathematicians to work in farming and mining at gunpoint?

Was the Cultural Revolution necessary?

I thought MLM was okay but I'm not sure if this is really for the greater good.

Other urls found in this thread:–present)#Occupation_and_genocide

So maybe don't engage in literal dick-eating?

sounds like NK-tier bourgeois propaganda tbh

Don't forget that Stalin had a secret weather machine to control the rain so he could starve his own people to death. I've also heard that Kim Jong Un feeds people to the dogs when they sneeze in his presence.


ones they deemed representative of older culture or whatever
so yes


yeah they shipped people out to rural labour that they had no fucking clue how to do because mao was a fucking idiot and agrarian utopias will never exist ever because farming isn't as simple as dipshit city folk think it is


well you were stupid

I dont want you deciding what is better for me you worthless bourgie fuck


The Holodomor was a genocide? Even liberal historians deny that claim.

Wait are you actually implying the Red Guards conducted a genocide?!

More orientalist propaganda than bourgeois imo

The Red Guards weren't a monolith. There where a lot of different Red Guard factions from the very start of the Cultural Revolution. Factions differed in tactics or interpretations of Mao and Socialism in general and how much violence was acceptable. In fact, the first split was between those who wanted to kill, torture, and humiliate people in the struggle sessions while others wanted to use as little force and violence as was possible. The Red Guard factions fought in-between them selfs quite a lot actually. It is true that some particularly insane factions did performs some sort of ritualistic cannibalism, but to think that it was commonplace or accepted by large groups of Red Guards is pure bourgeois propaganda.

yes and it was good and justified

Forgot to add, the most likely death estimate for the Revolution is about 2 or 2.5 million. Not the insane amount you sometimes hear like 10 or 20 million.

Chinks have been eating each other since forever, something you should expect from people heartless enough to boil doggers alive.–present)#Occupation_and_genocide

Back in 1950, Chinese Communists invaded Tibet. They didn’t like the Tibetan form of Buddhism, the Tibetan culture, or the Tibetan language. They wanted to wipe out the Tibetans and morph Tibet into just another part of China. The indigenous people of Tibet, or Tibetans, were the victims in the Tibetan Cultural Genocide because they were forced to give up their way of life, culture, and heritage. The perpetrators in the Tibetan Cultural Genocide were the Chinese because they were the ones who forced the Tibetans to give up their way of life, culture, and heritage.

Did some gay shit like sending smart people to work in mines and burning library's
Overall pretty cool dudes though duck Confucius

yeah nah you´re spooked man
also there is no logical reason to not eating doggos if you eat cows and pigs

Militarizated SJWism

Rightists are not people so Stalin didn't kill anyone :3

Except the Red Guards didn't put minorities like Uyghurs, Tibetans, etc on a silver pedestal.


instead they put han chinese on your pedestal you idpol cuck

idk, mao seems to have been mostly a bretty cool guy. liberal america's weird obsession with numbers and death counts seems to have tainted his image (not to mention that, obviously, both the great leap forward and the GPCR ended in failure), but he's one of the most influential marxists ever.

i always feel like people undercut how radical mao's accomplishments really were. yea things ended up mostly a mess but do you have any idea how horrible china was before the emergence of the communist movement?

explain how Red Guards were idpol at all.

The guy was saying they boil them alive though.

"anti Old values" and "anti traditionalism" is pretty sjw if you ask me

Then come over my house to eat my dog, maybe we can kill my brother and eat him too.

It was probably a lot better off because people had food to eat and freedom of association instead of being forced into labor camps by Mao's Red Guard and worked to death.

Ya man constantly having uprisings, being fed drugs by the British, being Techologically backwards, and isolationist. While dealing with invasions and sure had "freedom" under those Chinese Emperors.

While constantly dealing with famines, with low life expectancy, and of course let's not forget how peasants were at the will of the Chinese Emperor.

But let's forget about all that and focus on how the people starved under Mao and had no freedoms like they had from the Han Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty. Oh and how Mao Forced those people into labor camps and worked to death. Why not you actually look at how China actually got better after the Civil War was over. But that is too hard for you to understand I suppose since you have to look at as if all communism kill 1 quadrillion people because my Black Book of Communism told me so. Either learn from history or don't spew your bullshit everywhere.

Do you have any sources for famines, life expectancy before and after in China? Is there anything that talks about quality of life or did china just improve the return value on their drones?

I mean we look at China today and it seems like some people might have been better off as farmers instead of huffing toxic fumes 16 hours a day in an extremely alienating factory job. Maybe it was better in the 60's? I'm not really finding any good information.

I wrote this for another topic but forgot to cap in time. Anyway here it is.

Absolutely nothing wrong with bombing Tibetan monasteries. The clergy was the ruling class, and arguably one of the world's most regressive one, as the country was one of the last in the world to have both serfdom and slavery, and a general material situation that makes Haiti look like Utopia. Wrecking their temples was the equivalent of us bombing mansions and senate buildings; in other words, liberation.

Of course, Porky and friends will try to paint it as anti-Tibetan genocide, as opposed to destroying a vile caste of oppressors, and they'll throw in an extra Tear of Ultimate Sadness about how destroying monastic architecture and religious relics was "cultural genocide" when it was rather the destruction of the physical structure of an unbelievably reactionary system. Sure, I would rather that stuff was preserved as museums and shit, but then again, I didn't have to face the wretched fucks that used them.

There's a very simple reason the CIA never managed to get any Tibetan "freedom fighter" group started. The vast majority of Tibetans were far better off under crazy Maoists than under those Buddhist priests. The Reds did and still do their share of crimes, of course, but pushing the Tibetan clergy's shit in is not one of them.

Okay, scratch the bit about "the CIA never managed to get any Tibetan "freedom fighter" group started". It's more correct to say "the CIA never managed to get any Tibetan popular uprising started".

Maybe I don't want trichinosis.

So its okay to slaughter defenseless people because they are porky?

Mao had an enormously larger military force why didn't they force Tibet through more peaceful manipulation? Seems like a lot of needless bloodshed.

If the lowest numbers are 1-2 million yet the current day population of Tibet is only 3 million, roughly half of the population were greedy oppressors that deserve a bullet? I'm going to need material reasons not "vile dirty mean people are mean and bad and stupid". It sounds pretty close to justification for Imperialism. Am I about to find out Tibet has oil or rare earth minerals?

rly makes u think

Is this a cult?

I wish that was me tbh

all communist governments and their sympathizers are cults

just look at Lenin's Russia

I dont like Lenin or Leninism that much, but he hated the personality cult that was starting to form around him in him last years. The cult-like behaviour came more from Stalin and co.

didn't mean to quoute

This is a good article tho

Dude, do you know where you are? Yes, slaughtering """defenseless""" oppressors is justified, not the least of which because there's no other feasible way to get rid of them as a class. Ending slavery in the South didn't end the rule of the now-former slaveowners. I suppose Mao might have tried to "reform" the Tibetan ruling class – apparently he much prefered "re-education" over execution – but they din't hav that luxury. If I could hazard a guess, it's simply because they were too damn awful.

Just trying to puppeteer them with threats of invasion isn't really feasible, because it'll leave the conflict open to the entire world to directly butt in, and you can bet the capitalist countries would sanctify those damn monks. Even more than they already do, I mean. Not to mention there's a limit to how much they'll obey without a show of force first. Lastly, well, they deserved it.

I'd just like to point out that numbers about Tibetan population are notoriouly unreliable. The only group who knows for sure is the Chinese government itself, and I doubt the numbers they release to the public are truthful. But every single other source gives only estimations and almost all are tainted with propaganda too, with the government-in-exile providing particularly distant figures from China's. Every once a a while, the goverment-in-exile say the Chinese are swamping Tibet with ethnic Han, but that's yet to be echoed by other sources. The number of Han in Tibet is even more unknown than the number of Tibetans. Quite frankly, I don't know what's the most trustworthy source for Tibetan demographics, but there's no widely accepted evidence to show there has been genocide, either by violence or by colonization.

But I can't deny that it's imperialism, yes. Commies most definitely weren't free of that sin. Tibet was an ancient country that had sparred with China in times past, until the latter became the undisputed bigger power and Tibet, like Mongolia, was annexed by the last Chinese imperial dynasty over some 200 years ago. As the empire collapsed, both regions declared independence in 1911-12, but as soon as Mao re-unified China, he went after what was very arguably a "historic region of China". Pure bullshit, of course. A funny thing is that China would probably have invaded and annexed Mongolia too, had the USSR not taken it under their wing before. Regardless, to the best of my knowledge, neither Tibet nor Mongolia have any particularly valuable resources. The annexation of Tibet was just old imperialism I'm afraid, with the peculiar exception that life there was such shit that a foreign invasion actually massively improved the local quality of life. It's one of the rare cases where imperialism definitely was a net positive for the invaded.

Fun fact: one of the people tasked with planning the Tibetan invasion was our old buddy Deng Xiaoping.

This is why people think communism = fascism.

Everyone is quick to notice and condemn the blood shed on the soil of other nations, all while they themselves tread on the bones of the dead every day. I'm merely being sincere by recognizing that liberation requires violence – revolution is war, after all. And by the end of the day, socialism still entails a lesser human cost.

Yeah, it was Xi Huang Di 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Hey I went to the Indigenous Peoples Day march and don't even celebrate thanksgiving. Please don't make unfounded assumptions.

A lot of people condemn blood shed outright. What precisely makes killing okay for communist revolution, but not okay for nazis? You can't just say killing is good because it supports your ideology.

This is the most liberal fucking thing I have ever read.

Power tends to do those things, yeah. It's pretty rare for strong authoritarian governments to not build a cult of personality around the leader and his court since the endgame of all power is control, and establishing controllable behaviors naturally falls under that.

Distance from conflict often colors our opinions on it. I haven't met a veteran I hang out around the local American Legion that enjoyed the carnage as much as he enjoyed leaving it. Those who are not directly impacted by it (i.e. higher ups of leadership, bureaucrats, etc.) tend to think little of it. And this is with us disregarding how all struggles for power involve Machiavellian moves that we'd closely tie to sociopathy, because those behaviors are where successes are built in and out of the court.

sure thing pal…you know what happens if you allow tha in a society? It will end up like USA where corruption is socially accepeted and then the people are forced to choose between Trump and Hillary. That's what happens if gulags aren't built, if violence isn't used. Right wing isn't a political spectrum of theories and ideas, it's organized crime.

Murdering a slave is not the same thing, on any possible aspect, as murdering a slaveowner.

They want a reimagined "new China" fully disconnected with its past, not trying to turn the place into a cosmopolitan melting pot.

Why? I have a pretty good idea of why but I'm having difficulty finding justification to be well explained.

What are the specific material/historical conditions that make killing a slaveowner okay?

A slave owner is just acting in his own class interest according to the material conditions he was raised in. Most people born into a master class tend to protect in reactively because it is all that they know.

Bourgies don't exploit proletarians because they are evil (hand rubbing intensifies) they do it because its in their material interest to maintain their position. Not to mention that these deaths will change nothing, their vacancies will be filled by the hordes of up and coming bootlickers waiting for their chance to be on top. If you don't change the system you have ended another human life for nothing. This is why I early said that if your position is "kill all the bads" you are no better than pol. Those are some serious spooks.

What is it precisely that makes violence justified in some cases and not others? Why don't reactionary working class laborers deserve a right to self determination?

And "Left wing" is different how? To be clear I'm asking you to provide me with the reason why Marxism is scientifically correct and how it rationally justifies ending human lives during the process of revolution. Who dies? How many? Why? Why is it different? Why is this not just Esoteric Hitlerism Version Two? Does improving of QoL justify atrocities? Because then you are no different than a Hillary democrat spreading democracy with bombs.

These are important questions that the public will be asking and we need to have better answers than "they deserved it".


knowing chinese religious history is actually pretty helpful in understanding the maoist cult of personality

i would argue that what happened between mao and his followers was, in addition to being a real socialist force, an offshoot of a much older chinese tradition of the deification of authorities

I've heard this example for North Korea and I understand they share similar religions but could you give me an example of what you are talking about specifically?

They didn't "kill six gorillion innocents", but they did persecute and kill many, many people.

My reasoning was kind of hinted before: human cost. Or minimizing human suffering, to frame it another way. The slaveowner is objectively causing human suffering, and a better system, i.e. one with less total human suffering, necessitates his end. You can have a revolution and end that abomination now, or you can have some centuries of discussion and reforms auntil it maybe is abolished "peacefully. Centuries which, and here's the rub, there was a holocaust of human misery that could have been avoided by an infinitesimally smaller amount of misery on a few, specific, powerful people centuries ago.

I'm not saying simply killing random slaveowners would end slavery that indeed would be pointless violence, but ending slavery does require killing slaveowners. It's not a matter of retribution – or at least not only that – but the fact that a revolution entails the ruling class to be cast down from its pedestal, in both material and non-material ways, or in the case of one as wretched as slaveowners, terminated altogether.