Zohran Mamdani is using George Orwell's "Animal Farm" as his playbook

[aociswundumho]

North Korea hasn’t been “socialist” for decades,

Ah, the old "not real socialism" excuse for NK.

and America has proudly carried out decades of state terrorism in hopes of weakening Cuba.

So here the real(?) socialist state of Cuba would be rich if only it were allowed to trade with the evil capitalist USA.

What's the excuse for your beloved USSR? Or east germany? Or Mao's China? Or Cambodia under the khmer rouge? Or Ethiopia in the 80s? Or yugoslavia under Tito? I'll stop there, but it's a long list of one authoritarian socialist shit hole after another. Not one single success story.

 

[JMR]

No.

Democratic Socialist Countries 2025

Successful Socialist Countries​

Some argue that there has been no completely socialist country that has been successful, only countries that have seen success in adopting socialist policies.

Bolivia is an example of a prosperous socialist country. Bolivia has drastically cut extreme poverty and has the highest GDP growth rate in South America.

Other countries that have adopted and enacted socialist ideas and policies to various degrees, and have seen success in improving their societies by doing so, are Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.

How do you like that....None of these are included in Trump's list of shithole countries.

 

[Tigerace117]

Ah, the old "not real socialism" excuse for NK.



So here the real(?) socialist state of Cuba would be rich if only it were allowed to trade with the evil capitalist USA.

What's the excuse for your beloved USSR? Or east germany? Or Mao's China? Or Cambodia under the khmer rouge? Or Ethiopia in the 80s? Or yugoslavia under Tito? I'll stop there, but it's a long list of one authoritarian shit hole after another. Not one single success story.

North Korea literally passes power from father to son in an unbroken line. What about that is “socialist”?

The US constantly sponsoring terrorist attacks against Cuba is a simple historical fact.

The capitalist US proudly embraced both Mao’s China and the Khmer Rouge as allies. In Red Dawn China is one of only two American allies on the globe, and America spent years trying to aid Khmer Rouge insurgents against the Vietnamese backed troops who’d toppled them.

Likewise, the US actively courted Yugoslavia under Tito, which is why they had all those fancy Patton tanks.

You can flail all you want, but the historical facts won’t change.

On the contrary, Cuba defying the US and helping bring down apartheid is an immense success story.

As is China’s rise to global power status.

And Yugoslavia even holding together as long as it did, far outlasting the kingdom that preceded it.

 

[aociswundumho]

Bolivia is an example of a prosperous socialist country.

Oh, my goodness. This is how low the bar is for socialism - Bolivia is a socialist success story.

Average gdp for south america is only 10k per capita but Bolivia's gdp per capita is around $3500. That makes it one of the poorer countries in south america.

Other countries that have adopted and enacted socialist ideas and policies to various degrees, and have seen success in improving their societies by doing so, are Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.

Sorry, you need more than good feelings to demonstrate causation, especially when there is a mountain of real world evidence demonstrating that socialism leads to poverty and authoritarianism.

 

[Tigerace117]

Oh, my goodness. This is how low the bar is for socialism - Bolivia is a socialist success story.

Average gdp for south america is only 10k per capita but Bolivia's gdp per capita is around $3500. That makes it one of the poorer countries in south america.



Sorry, you need more than good feelings to demonstrate causation, especially when there is a mountain of real world evidence demonstrating that socialism leads to poverty and authoritarianism.

Gee, considering the US sponsored a literal drug dealer and his Gestapo pal in taking over the country, Bolivia had a long way to climb just getting that far.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Exactly, in fact it's better for the pro-freedom crowd if Mamdani wins. Not to mention much more entertaining.



Yes, but that's in spite of their socialist policies, not because of them. If socialist policies caused prosperity, then Cuba and North Korea would be the richest countries on earth.

This isn't Cuba or NK.. Sorry to break that to you...

 

[aociswundumho]

North Korea literally passes power from father to son in an unbroken line. What about that is “socialist”?

Nothing. What makes NK socialist is public control over the means of production.

The US constantly sponsoring terrorist attacks against Cuba is a simple historical fact.

Terrorist attacks? Constantly? What the hell are you talking about.

The capitalist US proudly embraced both Mao’s China and the Khmer Rouge as allies. In Red Dawn China is one of only two American allies on the globe, and America spent years trying to aid Khmer Rouge insurgents against the Vietnamese backed troops who’d toppled them.

Exciting hollywood movies are not evidence for anything.

Likewise, the US actively courted Yugoslavia under Tito, which is why they had all those fancy Patton tanks.

True, but that was political, not ideological. Tito broke with Stalin, so the US liked Tito.

As is China’s rise to global power status.

After it embraced market reforms, i.e. moved away from socialism towards capitalism.

And Yugoslavia even holding together as long as it did, far outlasting the kingdom that preceded it.

Again, the bar for socialism is so low it's almost touching the ground.

 

[Tigerace117]

Nothing. What makes NK socialist is public control over the means of production.



Terrorist attacks? Constantly? What the hell are you talking about.



Exciting hollywood movies are not evidence for anything.



True, but that was political, not ideological. Tito broke with Stalin, so the US liked Tito.




After it embraced market reforms, i.e. moved away from socialism towards capitalism.



Again, the bar for socialism is so low it's almost touching the ground.

Being socialist and a monarchy are mutually exclusive dude, no matter how inconvenient that is for you

The numerous terrorist attacks the US sponsored against Cuba, as I already pointed out.

Gee dude, even the Reagan era U.S. saw Maoist China as a close ally.

The U.S. didn’t have any issue with Yugoslavia’s socialism, as it turned out

After it ruthlessly crushed those demanding democracy, as it turned out.

Given how utterly atrociously many of the capitalist regimes run these countries, the bar would have to be hundreds of miles under the ground for the socialist regimes to even come close to being as bad.

 

[Peter]

Ah, the old "not real socialism" excuse for NK.



So here the real(?) socialist state of Cuba would be rich if only it were allowed to trade with the evil capitalist USA.

What's the excuse for your beloved USSR? Or east germany? Or Mao's China? Or Cambodia under the khmer rouge? Or Ethiopia in the 80s? Or yugoslavia under Tito? I'll stop there, but it's a long list of one authoritarian socialist shit hole after another. Not one single success story.

I'm pretty sure the leadership of North Korea wouldn't even claim it's socialism.
It's pure wholesale communism and batshit crazy isolationism.

The country doesn't really have an economy and the people are happy with mere survival.
I don't think you'll find anyone outside North Korea who think it's an economic model to emulateunless you like starvation rations and being told you now have zero access to the internet on pain of execution.

North Korea is just its own crazy world of sadness and missery.

 

[aociswundumho]

The country doesn't really have an economy and the people are happy with mere survival.

Yes it does. It's a socialist command economy combined with autarky. Two terrible economic ideas rolled into one.

I don't think you'll find anyone outside North Korea who think it's an economic model to emulate

You'd be wrong. Modern leftists would disagree on the details, but they, like you, would wholeheartedly support the idea of government control over the means of production.

unless you like starvation rations and being told you now have zero access to the internet on pain of execution.

North Korea is just its own crazy world of sadness and missery.

North Korea is an example of extreme collectivism, and collectivism is the core value of the political left.

 

[Peter]

Yes it does. It's a socialist command economy combined with autarky. Two terrible economic ideas rolled into one.



You'd be wrong. Modern leftists would disagree on the details, but they, like you, would wholeheartedly support the idea of government control over the means of production.



North Korea is an example of extreme collectivism, and collectivism is the core value of the political left.

I don't support government control over the means of production so that's a fail straight away.
I used to work for a company that supplied farms and I dont think farms should be government owned.

Next?

You really do have an odd view on what the left want.

 

[aociswundumho]

I don't support government control over the means of production so that's a fail straight away.

Do you support the NHS?

The NHS is an example of government control over the means of production regarding healthcare.

Do you believe the NHS provides a better overall outcome than a free market in healthcare could?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Going to be there on business in September. Do you have recommendations?

I’ve only been in New York for a layover.

 

[Peter]

Do you support the NHS?

The NHS is an example of government control over the means of production regarding healthcare.

Do you believe the NHS provides a better overall outcome than a free market in healthcare could?

Yes I support the NHS.
The NHS is not a means of production.
Yes, I believe the NHS does better than a private alternative as do many, many other British people.

The NHS is wildly popular and swapping it for private care is about as popular as a sandwich bar trying to sell shit sandwiches.

Means of production is things like farms and other businesses.
The UK is a capitalist society that has many private companies that supply our means of production.

 

[What if...?]

Accusation is proof in Trumpworld.

I thought it was confession?

 

[Geoist]

There is more to Marxism than the ideological arguments made in support of it by Zohran Mamdani, which are made to gather the peoples’ support.

The arguments made are nothing more than a con game by Mamdani to acquire power, and once acquiring that power will live in luxury as the chosen one who is in charge of re-distributing the wealth people have produced.

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a tutorial on this ancient rope-a-dope con game, which Zohran Mamdani is now perpetrating on the people of NYC.​

.

The good people of Cuba fell for Mamdani’s type of game in 1959 when Fidel Castro took over, and they are still paying the price to this very day.​

George Orwell was a democratic socialist, just like Mamdani.

Yes, George Orwell consistently identified as a democratic socialist. He used his writing to critique totalitarianism and support a socialist vision that prioritized social and economic justice, particularly through active government intervention.

Orwell's socialist views were shaped by his experiences with poverty and inequality, which he documented in works like The Road to Wigan Pier. He believed that a socialist society, one that actively worked to address social and economic injustices, was necessary to improve the lives of ordinary people.

While he was a socialist, Orwell was also critical of certain aspects of socialism, particularly the dangers of totalitarianism, whether in the form of Stalinist communism or fascism. He saw democratic socialism as a way to achieve social and economic equality while safeguarding individual liberties and democratic institutions. Orwell's famous works Animal Farm and 1984 serve as powerful warnings against the dangers of centralized power and the suppression of freedom, themes that are deeply intertwined with his democratic socialist ideals.

In his own words, Orwell stated that every serious piece of work he wrote after 1936 was "written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it" according to Stanford Report.

 

[Geoist]

For those who lack the initiative to read Orwell's brilliant book, Animal Farm, or lack the mental rigor to grasp its meaning, here's a much shorter animal story to convey the same warning. It goes like this: mice die in traps because they don't understand why the cheese is free.

George Orwell was a democratic socialist. I absolutely love the irony of your post.

 

[What if...?]

Excellent, with those wonderful economies there's no need for NYC and CA to receive federal dollars, i.e., no need for them to be subsidized by those "red states" and "economic sewers."

You do know that California is net contributor, right?

We send more to DC than we get back.

 

[aociswundumho]

George Orwell was a democratic socialist, just like Mamdani.

No, not just like Mamdani. Orwell distrusted state power, especially centralized control. He saw state overreach as a threat to freedom.

Mamdani sees the state as a vehicle to impose his wonderful ideas on everyone by force. He sees no benefit to limiting the power of the government to do good.

 

[johnwk]

George Orwell was a democratic socialist. I absolutely love the irony of your post.

Well, isn’t this special? The bearded pig promises to tax white neighborhoods harder​

.

 

[Felis Leo]

No, not just like Mamdani. Orwell distrusted state power, especially centralized control. He saw state overreach as a threat to freedom.

Mamdani sees the state as a vehicle to impose his wonderful ideas on everyone by force. He sees no benefit to limiting the power of the government to do good.

Ah yes. Orwell was definitely one of those democratic socialists who would have been against free public transportation, rent controlled public housing, and public option grocery stores. Or perhaps you forgot the "democratic" part that separates democratic socialists from the Marxist-Leninists.

 

[Geoist]

Well, isn’t this special?​

So wtf is your point to this thread? Obviously Animal Farm's message isn't what you thought it was.

The bearded pig promises to tax white neighborhoods harder​

So he's taxing rural trailer parks?

 

[Geoist]

No, not just like Mamdani. Orwell distrusted state power, especially centralized control. He saw state overreach as a threat to freedom.

What makes you think Mamdani doesn't agree?

But I get it, as an ancap you think public grocery stores are the gateway drug to dictatorship.

Mamdani sees the state as a vehicle to impose his wonderful ideas on everyone by force. He sees no benefit to limiting the power of the government to do good.

Google:

As a self-described democratic socialist, George Orwell believed in the potential of government to serve the greater good of society, particularly in achieving social and economic equality.
However, Orwell's work, including his masterpieces Animal Farm and 1984, also demonstrates a keen awareness of the dangers of unchecked government power and the abuses that can arise from it, regardless of the ideology it espouses.

 

[Geoist]

Ah yes. Orwell was definitely one of those democratic socialists who would have been against free public transportation, rent controlled public housing, and public option grocery stores. Or perhaps you forgot the "democratic" part that separates democratic socialists from the Marxist-Leninists.

We all know if George Orwell was alive today the rightwingers like @aociswundumho would be condemning him as an autocratic commie.

 

[aociswundumho]

Ah yes. Orwell was definitely one of those democratic socialists who would have been against free public transportation, rent controlled public housing, and public option grocery stores. Or perhaps you forgot the "democratic" part that separates democratic socialists from the Marxist-Leninists.

The main difference between Marxists and democratic socialists is how they intend to impose socialism. Marxists believe in revolution, while democratic socialists prefer to win elections.