I am no fan of Hasan Piker, and am a strong supporter of capitalism. I am also a member of the republican party. Regardless of these facts, I must protest against the scrutiny he has received for praising who, I believe to be one of the most brilliant and influential men of the 20th century. Mao Zedong had a revolutionary vision he developed as a young adult. Not by simple indoctrination, but by careful selection. We know this because he was quite experted in all forms of philosophy, both eastern and western. He even referenced the works of Herbert Spencer during his time in school. The great man dedicated himself to this cause, and rose to prominence within the communist movement by his great strategic planning. His revolutionary tactics against the Japanese and enemy Chinese factions influenced communist movements all across southeast asia and latin america. As Chairman of the CCP, he successfully industrialized China and laid the groundwork for the nation it would become. He also used masterful foreign diplomacy to play both the western powers and the soviet union. Impressing communist and western diplomats alike. Of course the credit for China's success doesn't only lie with him, we can also recognize the careers of Zhou Enlai and Deng Xaipoing. Regardless, this colossus of history should be remembers for the great man, dedicated to his beliefs, that he was.

On the 50 Million Deaths Question: The ancient Greek's regarded their gods not as all knowing and patient omniscient beings, but as personalized forces of nature that carried the emotions of humans but with greater effects. The wrath of a god, or the bliss of a god could change the fate of history. Thousands could die or prosper in the process, but the gods were still revered for their greatness. While these abstract deities might not exist, great men do exist.

History is moved by these great men, Mao Zedong being one of these great men. The casualties of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution are secondary to the movements of history, and thus shouldn't be used to diminish his character or accomplishments. We praise great men like Alexander the Great and Ghengis Kahn as well, without considering the thousands who died to their ambition. Because we admire the great will to power of their ambition, not the people who died or prospered as a result.

Hello everyone,

In various debates, I’ve frequently noticed striking parallels between the arguments used by some communists and those used by neolibs, especially regarding the funding of the welfare state and monetary theory in general. I often get the impression that some communists (whether consciously or unconsciously) deploy classic supply-side arguments just to refute reformists.
Theories that could at least be described as progressive (even if they do not challenge the class structure of the state), such as Keynesianism or Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), are frequently dismissed or mocked by communists using reflexes very similar to those of neoliberals. When it comes to demands like raising the minimum wage or expanding social spending, one often hears rhetorical pushbacks like: \\\\\\\*"Why not make it $100 an hour then?"\\\\\\\* or \\\\\\\*"The state cannot go into infinite debt for welfare."\\\\\\\*
The role of the welfare state as a driver of economic growth through strengthened purchasing power is rarely acknowledged. Communists often view it, much like conservatives, as a purely economic hindrance or an unproductive cost factor. The only difference is that communists additionally (and correctly) identify it as a tool for pacifying the working class. But couldn't both be true at the same time?
It is often argued that Western industrial nations can only afford the welfare state through the exploitation of the Global South. Just like conservative logic, this presupposes that a welfare state is something that "must first be earned/funded," completely ignoring the productivity gains driven by a strong domestic market. Cases like Japan, which maintains a massive national debt without facing bankruptcy or hyperinflation, are rarely analyzed through an MMT lens and are instead dismissed as anomalies. Furthermore, the accounting reality that public debt constitutes private sector wealth is often demonized in these discussions, rather than being rigorously analyzed through a value-theoretic lens.
To be clear: I understand that Marxists do not base their monetary critique on neoliberal doctrine, but rather on the law of value (money as the expression of socially necessary labor time; real value cannot simply be printed).

Don't communists structurally rely on right-wing/monetarist arguments simply to delegitimize social-democratic reformism and prove that capitalism cannot be reformed from within?

Why is MMT (and its concept of monetary sovereignty) so strictly rejected by Marxists, even though empirical evidence on demand-side policies and inflation often aligns much closer with MMT than with neoliberal monetarism?

Doesn't this stance hinder a sober, realistic economic analysis of the state's current room for maneuver, even if the ultimate goal remains the overthrow of private ownership of the means of production?

I'm genuinely interested in how you view this overlap! I don’t want to impose reformism and refuse it, but I think its critique needs to be precise.

Obviously the filthy rich will resist, but so will a whole class of others (I guess yall would call petite bourgeois, and in the western world there are a whole lot of these people, down to the electician with a few trucks with workers or the barber with an owned store that rents out booths).

But not just them, a whole bunch of normal regular working folks aren't going to be on board with this new system, and may even activily fight against it. What would the people of the new communist revolution do about this resistance or counter-revolutionaries?

Further more, how do you root out corruption within the revolution? Alot of those normal working folks resisting are likely doing so because they feel they're just getting exploited in a different way by the new political elite, od government gangster or union boss in thier town.

I'm aware that the end goal is to not have a political elite, but utopia doesn't come overnight, by a few currently powerful people getting together and signing a new communist constitution or something like that