Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss was banned in Communist China from 1965 until 1991

>Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss was banned in Communist China from 1965 until 1991

How the FUCK do people still take communism seriously?

Why would you trust anything designed by jews?
I honestly don't know, why anyone would.
Communism was literally invented to control an entire nation so they have minimal rights and don't own anything.
But hey its okay because we all get equal pay!

>Communism with (((Chinese))) Characteristics

I don't take authoritarian regimes based on any ideology seriously anymore. Look at the retarded shit Nazis did with music, films and art. It was pure autism. Stalin was even more baffling. Through most of its history, the Russian communists have been very well connected to the artistic avant-garde. And then he goes on to denounce it as bourgeouis (while nazis at the same time denounce it as judeobolshevik, fucking kek), in favour of "socialist realism". Even the US, which isn't exactly an authoritarian regime, had its share of absolutely retarded shit during the cold war.
>americans

I'm not American.
Why do you think what i said makes me American though?

>Why would you trust anything designed by jews?
>Communism was literally invented to control an entire nation so they have minimal rights and don't own anything.
>But hey its okay because we all get equal pay!
I'm sorry I insulted americans.

I don't know what you mean.
I know you are trying to insult me but can you please explain why i am wrong?

>Even the US, which isn't exactly an authoritarian regime, had its share of absolutely retarded shit during the cold war.
America went the exact opposite. the CIA was secretly funding avant garde art as a fuck you to soviet artist who were restricted to making nothing but propaganda, while in America you were free to make any stupid bullshit you wanted to.

>America went the exact opposite. the CIA was secretly funding avant garde art as a fuck you to soviet artist who were restricted to making nothing but propaganda, while in America you were free to make any stupid bullshit you wanted to.
I meant things like Arthur Miller being called in front of the Un-American Activities Commitee because if he criticizes the American dream, he is obviously a communist. America really went far with its paranoia.
Would it be worth the effort?

Yes, i know you may think i'm a troll or a dumb cunt, but i would like to know your opinion, as long as you keep it mature and civil please.

I don't get it, the only message Green Eggs and Ham has is "how do you know you hate it if you've never tried it?"

>The deadliest weapon ever made is acquired by Soviet spies
>FBI report on Soviet agents working in the government is ignored and goes missing
>Soviets back communist governments across the world putting millions under oppressive and murderous rule

LOL Y U SO PARANOID XDDD

Shit. Meant for

You're genuinely being polite and civil, and now you're making me feel terrible for having insulted you. Sorry, my dude. It's kind of late around here, and I'm a bit drunk, but here goes.
Why would you trust anything designed by jews?
>Why would you trust anything designed by jews?
I don't see why I wouldn't trust something designed by a jew any less than I would trust something designed by anyone else. Marxism doesn't really address jews or judaism in any particular way. But, even if you are serious about distrust toward Jews, Marx wasn't exactly religious. He was also somewhat disdainful of Jews, seeing them as more significantly under influence of capital (which would manifest as a completely instrumental relation toward other people, obsession with money etc.) than any other people.
>Communism was literally invented to control an entire nation so they have minimal rights and don't own anything.
None of this particularly follows from marxist doctrine. Marx sees hierarchy in the superstructure as a result of the production relations in the infrastructure. Basically, hierarchy is rooted in the different relation to property, which allows one group, that is, those who control the means of production, to survive off the labour of others. Those who control the means of production live off rent (appropriated value), while those who do not live off the value their own work. Since the livelihood of workers depends on work, which cannot be done without the means of production, the rentier class (in capitalism, that class is the bourgeouise) holds power over the producing class (in capitlism, that class is the proletariat). That manifests in the superstructure as political and cultural power. By communal ownership of the means of production, that is, by removing the unequal production relations, hierarchical power in the superstructure would also be removed. You could hardly consider a movement calling for abolishment of illegitimate hierarchy something [cont]

Ah yes, the dangerous nuclear playwrights. How could I have forgotten about them?

>this book exists

How the FUCK do people still take communism seriously?

Because the state is supposed to tell you what to like and dislike. Having to try stuff for your self is libertine excessiveness and leads to moral corruption and betrayal of state ideals. Maybe you should try gay but sex and assassination of party leaders? You might like it? WRONG. Try only what we say for you to try.

That's okay man i appreciate you begin civil, everyone on here just start hurling insults when you have a different opinion lol.
But if you look back to the start of communism it was in Russia, and was started by the Bolsheviks when they killed the tsar.
9 out of the 10 leaders of the Bolsheviks were jews. The jews are very good at hiding the major role they play in trying to destroy countries and cultures from the inside, theres a reason they were banished from every country they inhabited since they got kicked out of israel. I know you are probs a nice bloke and don't want to "hate' jews because being filled with hate is never good, but you must open your eyes to the idea that they aren't good people.
You seem to know much more than me on this haha, but is it true in communism that you don't own anything? That being your house and land?

...that is trying to wrest control of a nation with the goal of totalitarian government without any rights. The way things worked in the USSR had created a minor crisis in marxist thought. The USSR rationalized its oppression as a means of preventing counter-revolution from reactionaries (marxists tend to view everything through the lens of themselves and "the reaction", which would encompass everything they perceive to serve the interests of the rentier class. For that reason, they tend to be blind to nuance.) and later, from external threats. That isn't completely contrary to marxist theory, because the proletariat needs to achieve complete victory over the rentier class. It found a stronger founding in Lenin's works, since his vision included an intellectual vanguard party leading the workers, since they are incapable of organizing by themselves (and a leading position also gives power to the vanguard party). Part of the marxists cautiously supported that, hoping that the USSR would eventually decentralize and liberalize. Something that never happened. Others were pessimistic toward it as a betrayed revolution. Some even used marxist theory to provide a critique of the Soviet society. For example, Milovan Đilas claimed that the Soviet Inteligentsia is in no way different from the bourgeoise class, because it has monopoly over the means of production. The only difference is that the monopoly is founded on political power instead of on ownership. In fact, it is even worse than capitalist societies, because in capitalist societies there is at least a democratic platform for the opposition to express itself. In the USSR the rentier class, the inteligentsia, has achieved complete power over life in the state. At any rate, those who were optimistic had much more influence, due to the nature of the communist parties. Since they saw their fight as pan-national, it was natural that they would cooperate and coordinate their actions. And since the USSR was [cont]

I would not could not put all my money in the rothschilds bank. I would not could not puff on that military grade dank. I will not be judeofascist Sam I Am that shits rotten to the core like green eggs and ham.

Would you could you with a mouse? Would you could you in a mouse?

in a house, I meant

...the only socialist society in existence, it was natural that they would lead the fight. Stalin, as the victorious party in ww2, managed to secure for the Soviet communist party an even greater amount of power, a near monopoly. Basically, nearly all European communist parties (except Yugoslavian and Albanian parties, which broke off with Stalin) gargled Soviet cock. And by that I mean the West European parties, the East European parties were just Soviet puppets. At any rate, that contributed to lowering the amount of criticism directed toward the Soviet Union. In time, the influence waned, but the communist parties remained predominantly defensive toward the USSR despite there being plenty of reasons not to be. That cautiously positive attitude is something that allowed the opponents of the socialist ideology to frame it as a totalitarian effort.
>But hey its okay because we all get equal pay!
Not really. All that was supposed to be equal were the production relations. That's the case with late Marx, anyway. Early Marx (which is as often disowned by marxists as he is praised) had a much, much more utopian view of the communist society. Basically, the return of communal production would end the instrumental orientation toward work and toward others (it would end alienation - for the argumentation see Marx's "alienated labour". It's long and I'm tired). Since a man would be the sole master of his own labour, wages would disappear. Due to dropping the instrumental relation toward others, the fruits of labour would be spread communally, according to the maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Because young Marx is often disowned by marxists, they predominantly don't intend to end wage labour. At the same time, they don't intend the wages to be equal, either. They only intend to make the production relations equal.
>9 out of the 10 leaders of the Bolsheviks...
Jesus Christ, dude.
>but is it true...
[cont]

I wonder how many Russians had casual access to eggs and ham???

>but is it true in communism that you don't own anything? That being your house and land?
I honestly haven't enough knowledge to answer this, since I study sociology, and our look is primarily on the sociological aspects of marxism (not to mention that it's pathetically incomplete). I can tell you my personal opinion on it, since I am partly influenced by marxism, but I cannot confidently answer from the standpoint of the marxist doctrine since I don't know enough of it. I know early Marx was an opponent of property in general, and would have predicted communal distribution of material goods, rather than distribution through the idea of property. But I've no idea about late marx or about different strains of marxist thought. Sorry, dude.

You didn't include the reason for the ban bruv
it only makes this debacle even more mysterious

Probably few, but given that it wasn't exactly a political book it's probably for lack of interest. Most foreign childrens books were beyond the notice of soviet publishers.

Except it wasn't real communism or socialism to begin with. If China was truly leftist between 1965 to 1991 they would have known that Dr. Seuss was a leftist against fascism. China under so-called "communism" was authoritarian right wing nationalism with state capitalism. Today China is a far right fascist corporatist regime with full blown capitalism returning to China.

It was banned in China though, not Russia.

>Talk shit about the American Dream which is one of the founding ideas to your nation.
I mean. That is kind of Un-American thing to say and something a communist would say.

Can't have the peasants thinking decadent westerners have green egg and ham breakfast when all noble Chinese workers eat rice gruel.

>unironcially using the "that wasnt real gommunism!" meme

>people who call themselves communists get into power
>try to build their utopia
>it kills millions
>it destroys an ancient culture
>"lol that was not real communism, looks like we have to try again"

Based on previous experiences with communism, real or not, i'd stay as far away from that murdering ideology as i can

Christianity was designed by Jews

Because it wasn't real communism. It was Chinese authoritarian nationalism with conservative values mixed along with quasi-"socialist" ideas.
They weren't trying to build communism or a utopia. They were building so-called "socialism" which wasn't socialist nor communist. It was right wing nationalism with state capitalism via the so-called "Communist Party" which was simply a right wing corporation.

Stalin was the only thing that kept Shostakovich from becoming a second-rate Berg

Fuck Sam and his green eggs and ham tbqh

>How the FUCK do people still take communism seriously?
i thought it was a meme at this point. anybody who does take it seriously rely on mental gymnastics alone to justify it

The computer you’re on was most likely designed by a jew

But he beat the sparrows, the problem was beating the sparrows means the locusts get out of control so the image should really be some locusts for it to make sense

Once you beat sparrows, you fight locusts. It's called permanent revolution.

...

...

Fpbp

What's a philosophy that states "leave my shit alone and I'll leave your shit alone"?

But Doctor Seuss is nonsensical garbage?

>security loopholes are the computer
I think you're right.

>How the FUCK do people still take China seriously?

Fixed.