Cat's are not communist, they are anarchists 100%
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
120 points (92.9% liked)
Memes
51531 readers
1623 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 35 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Does dronies define liberals only or is it anyone center-right?
I think it means imperial core liberals, and I think it’s in reference to:
But now that drones have become ubiquitous in warfare, it doesn’t make much sense anymore.
i want to imagine that it came from a world too innocent to believe that drones would become so ubiquitous in warfare. lol
Dronies? Is this an evolution of takies? A subspicies?
I think it originally referred to the people supporting the droning of civilians in the middle east in guise of "fighting terrorism". Nowadays it refers to liberals who blindly support everything NATO and their allies are doing.
Let's be honest. If a cat could choose its job, it would choose landlord, but only if "generic capitalist who exploits people" is not an option. They are the least communist animals.
Socialism dies as soon as a single person becomes its absolute leader. From there, it is just a walk toward authoritarism.
Oh you mean in a fictional scenario that does not exist in the real world?
Why are you making up scenarios that have never existed?
To be honest, I know little about Mao and beginnings of PRC - I'm quite ignorant about how much of an "absolute leader" he was.
But I do believe that idolizing a person and concentration of power are dangerous to democracy.
And it's interesting how much responses I got on this topic.
Among Marxists, we say "no investigation, no right to speak." This quote is from Mao, and the importance of upholding it is to not contribute to a miasma of misinformation. If you don't know about Mao, then don't speak as though you understand him and his role in the history of Socialism.
This is reflected in the ideas you claim about "idolization." Mao held immense respect among the people for successfully bringing the revolution to victory and implementing many great economic decisions during the early and middle parts of his political career. This creates "idolization," but he wasn't an absolute leader - he lost political influence for his mistakes during the Cultural Revolution and his reputation tarnished, as well as his foreign policy towards the middle and latter parts with respect to Cambodia and Vietnam.
"Concentration of power" isn't what happened. With the rise of the Communists, power was spread more evenly among the people, rather than concentrated in the Landlords, Bourgeoisie, Petite Bourgeoisie, and Kuomintang. The implementation of the People's Democratic Dictatorship resulted in more direct democracy for the peasantry and proletariat, as well as the implementation of the Mass Line as the theoretical basis of communication between the party and the masses.
I can offer recommendations if you want to learn more about Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-MZT. I think your analysis of Socialism will be improved if you do more reading and research, and less discussion of concepts and subjects you aren't familiar with. That's why you got the response you did.
Sure, do recommend - I'd need a basic overview, but not too deep, as I don't have enough motivation for in-depth review of all socialist governments in the last two centuries.
I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list you can check out for theory, but it's in-depth. Dessalines has a Crash-Course and FAQ that I like if you want something short and to the point.
I agree kinda, I don’t think Mao weaseled his way to becoming an absolute leader, more like history created the specific circumstances that lead to him in that position and the historical situation of the 20th century created all these leaders. We like to pretend that the west didn’t have these single person political leaders, but honestly what the fuck was Henry Kissinger or FDR? These figures exist all over 20th century history most countries literally had their leader.
Maos biggest mistake was not absolving himself of responsibility and power because guess what those things are fucking awesome and most humans who have responsibility and power love it and never want to give that shit up just look at old people.
Mao was ousted from power as time went on due to mistakes made during the Cultural Revolution. He wasn't an "Absolute Leader," he was extremely popular for successfully leading a socialist revolution and implementing extremely successful policies (towards the beginning and middle).
I’m not saying Mao was unaccomplished but towards the end he was considered an absolute leader and he was not very chill, he locked up a lot of people during the cultural revolution sometimes for quite arbitrary reasons. Some of his policies were also a disaster the backyard steel and culling of the sparrows are usually the two that westerners always like to hold on to. The mistakes he made during the cultural revolution were really bad. I don’t hate Mao I read his little red book as a teenager and I enjoyed it, I just didn’t find it to be very relevant to me. I grew up in the west though I’m sure if you were a young Indian or something Mao would hit completely differently.
I also found it really interesting that deepseek would refuse to answer any questions on Mao. Anyways we should view these people as they were human beings who managed to become very powerful and made many of the mistakes that are associated with that. Honestly otherwise you’re just doing lefty great man stuff.
He was not considered an Absolute Leader. He held tremendous respect until he lost it from mistakes he made during the Cultural Revolution, and gradually lost political power and influence until his death. As someone in the US Empire, much of his writing on Dialectical Materialism and Party Work are immensely valuable, among other works. Nobody is denying the mistakes of Mao, we are denying the Great Man Theory aspect of your analysis that pins Mao as some absolute leader despite clearly being ousted once his policies were no longer popular.
As for Deepseek, it refrains from political discussion in general.
I don’t think Mao was a great man in the Thomas Carlyle sense, I think he was very powerful man who was at some point an absolute leader. I guess we just disagree on that point which is fine. Also when was Mao ousted exactly and where can I read about this because everything I have read Mao remained the chairman until his death. Deep seek has no problems talking talking about politics it doesn’t however want to talk about any Chinese politicians. I just tested it out.
What is an "absolute leader" if his policies were not accepted absolutely and his power was systematically weakened later in life? Mao held many positions throughout his life in the CPC, and was Chairman of the CPC until death, but more major positions like Premier were held by other figures, and his influence over the party waned as time went on within the positions he did retain. For instance, he stepped down as President in 1959.
He retained massive influence, but his influence was greater earlier on, and the influence of others rose as time went on. The CPC's current evaluation of Mao is along the lines of "70% good, 30% bad." They also, however, refuse to take the road of Kruschev with Stalin, which ended up contributing to the destruction of the Soviet Union.
I think there was a point when if Mao said jump you asked how high. I’m sure this wasn’t the case at all times and if you can give me some cool reading suggestions I’ll gladly check it out. I just think that sadly power dynamics like this can develop in political organisations no matter what ideology the members hold. If you really want to know my crazy beliefs it’s that hyper intelligence may not be an evolutionary beneficial trait, but who knows maybe I’m wrong maybe humanity will survive the complete destruction of earths ecosystems and global heating of 3-4 degrees which I think we will easily hit by 2100.
People respected Mao greatly due to his effectiveness and competence as a leader. That's why he retained the positions he did until the very end, and why the Cultural Revolution was carried out. People listened to him because they trusted him and through experience knew he was competent. He wasn't unopposed, nor was he the only leader, there were many other positions that held more direct influence.
As for climate change, it's certainly happening, but the degree to which we can mitigate the most disastrous effects is rising due to countries like the PRC making it a top priority to combat.
Let’s see the whole carbon balance of the earth is changing instead of earth being a carbon sink it’s slowly becoming a carbon pump. We are loosing huge swathes of Forrest methane ice crystals in the artic and Antarctic are starting to thaw. It also turns out there is a whole lot more methane trapped under artic glaciers than we thought and those are all melting. I think the next 8 years are going to show that we hit the 1.5 degree target already, that’s like 70 years ahead of schedule. At some point we are going to try geoengineering whether we like it or not. I do agree that the PRC definitely takes climate change seriously but there are still more radical policy solutions that they should consider like not engaging in commercial fishing for 10-20 years if we still want to have any fish in the ocean.
Oh yeah Mao was definitely opposed people plotted against him all the time. Shit like that happens in every single political party. I’m an extremely pessimistic and cynical person, communism doesn’t get a pass from me. I’d still rather live in a country that took climate change and economic development with an eye on trying to help the poorest in society as seriously as China does, but I definitely appreciate the information freedom I get in the west even though that shit is slowly being eroded as well. What’s that old joke again? Under communism you can make fun of your boss but not the politicians, under capitalism you can make fun of the politicians but not your boss. I don’t think China is the dystopian hell that a bunch of libs and conservatives think it is, but like any place it could be a whole lot better. I’m saving up money and I’m going to sign up for Chinese lessons at the Confucius institute here and hopefully I can learn a little bit and one day visit China and then I can talk to some people and see what it’s like for myself and not just rely on images and information other people produced. I also want to try learn more Spanish so I can check out Cuba but I find it very difficult to concentrate and learn now a days.
The PRC is already implementing technology to combat desertification, and is making great progress on Nuclear Fusion and Solar energy. Climate Change is already here, there aren't hard targets, but degrees of mitigation, the more we do the sooner the less bad the impact will be.
I think it's good to visit China and Cuba, that's a good goal.
Yeah as I said let’s see I think most people are underestimating the scope of the situation and idk if we can industrially develop our way out of this, so far the only proven method of lowering our co2 emissions was lockdown. I certainly hope that that China does make these technical break throughs and then shares them with the rest of the world. When I was in 8th grade some people from China came to my school and they had this offer to go to this thing they called a „leadership camp“ or something in China I had to submit an essay and I was accepted but it was pretty expensive so I ended up no going, looking back I what it was exactly I just remembered this today.
https://revolutionarymovie.com/
Have you ever seen it? I was thinking of watching it sounded kinda interesting
Dunno about that movie, the people lopping praises on it aren't what I would consider politically friendly to China, though, which is a red flag. Lots of US State Department smells coming from it.
I think that this video gave me the best insight into how China works nowadays, and I suspect things weren't entirely dissimilar in the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1TeeIG6Uaw I also looked into things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Congress_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party after starting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China and it seems that things are pretty complicated. For example: Due to the temporary nature of the plenary sessions, most of NPC's power is delegated to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), which consists of about 170 legislators and meets in continuous bi-monthly sessions, when its parent NPC is not in session.
this is actually a surprisingly good overview from a western publication https://www.noemamag.com/what-the-west-misunderstands-about-power-in-china/
this is also a great resource for understanding how the government is structured https://news.cgtn.com/event/2021/who-runs-the-cpc/index.html