He failed to exterminate the eternal parasite, now they have the "holocaust" card to cry with.
I'm eastern european and I want to strangle you for having such dangerous views.
>Mao Zedong, Communist revolutionary founding father of the People's Republic of China and founder and Chairman of the Communist Party of China
>not a communist
* tips Ushanka *
You might want to leave the debate altogether, then, if you're so easily triggered into doing physical harm to another human for something that is only going on in his mind.
Seriously. What makes you any different from the communists-in-name-only that you seem to fear so much if you're just as willing as them to resort to political violence?
Maybe you're the problem, then, and not the idea.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Zedong.
Considering the amount of political suppression and violence directed towards socialists (and even "too socialist for their own good" kind of people) practiced in the "free", "democratic" countries not under communist umbrella, you have to be utterly fucking brainless to not see a reason why the only "succesful" communist leaders (i.e. got to rule, NOT DEAD) were ruthless, violent bastards. It's the only kind that wasn't assassinated out of office by domestic and external forces the minute they stepped on some wealthy, influential people's toes. Just because someone's leading a fight against communism doesn't mean they're right - for example, the land-owners' sons' US-backed counter-revolution in Cuba - how do you think it would have ended up had they won? In increase in public wealth? Give me a break.
Just so it's clear, I'm not defending the guy. But comparing liberal, democratic communists to Mao or Stalin is just as fair as it would be to compare free-thinking capitalists to Pinochet or Mannerheim; nil.
If I as a non-Muslim man were to burst into a crowded area shouting "ALLAHU AKBAR" whilst gunning down everyone in sight, does that make me a representative of Islam just because a few ISIS twitter pages approve? No, that'd be retarded. Just because someone declares themselves to be in the name of x,y, or z ideology does not mean that they are an accurate representation of the whole (ESPECIALLY when discussing a broad spectrum of ideologies that are encompassed under "communism").
Mao's ideology (along with being third-worldist trash) made little attempts to actually establish communism. He set up a state-capitalist authoritarian state out of the gates, and used communist imagery for populist appeal. Deng Xiaoping later took this and reformed the Chinese "Communist" party policy to more directly reflect this attitude. Aside from the imagery and naming conventions, China hardly pretends to even be communist anymore.
>hurrdurr back to /pol/
>hurrdurr back to /ussr/
This is why we can't have nice things
when will they ever learn?
>The No True Scotsman fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when; someone changes the definition of a word to make a claim true by default, or a term is preemptively given a biased definition designed to exclude elements vulnerable to criticism, yet making sure to still include all things praiseworthy.
>makes a dogshit analogy
>proves himself wrong with it anyway
wew lad, you moved the goalposts onto a false equivalency bridge that collapsed under you. It'd be impressive if it weren't so pathetic.
Prove me wrong
>Protip: you cant
>WHEN WILL THEY EVVER LEARN