The other “but do you condemn Hamas” of leftism, gotta say it or you scare the bitches.
You mean the democratic socialist, an inherently anti-authoritarian party, is calling out authoritarians?
Is it going to be news when he condems Xixing Ping and Putin and Netanyahu, and the Iranian Shah, and Saudi Royal family, and well you get the picture.
Fuck authority that doesn’t earn it.
Iranian Shah
Why would he condemn a regime that hasn’t existed for 46 years?
Because the Ayatollah is the Shah lol
The monarchs of Iran ruled for over two and a half millennia, beginning as early as the 8th century BC and enduring until the 20th century AD. The earliest Iranian monarch is generally considered to have been either Deioces of the Median dynasty (c. 727–550 BC) or Cyrus the Great of the Achaemenid dynasty (550–330 BC). The last Iranian monarch was Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of the Pahlavi dynasty (1925–1979), who was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution. Since then, Iran has been governed by theocratic supreme leaders.[1]
“Shah of Iran” redirects to that page.
You know, sometimes it’s ok for you to be wrong. I know hexbear is a community where everything is literal, but in this case, an Iranian Monarch and Iranian Supreme Leader are just different titles for two different authoritarian Regimes.
Just like Xi Jingping is the Authoritarian Ruler of China, like Mao was.
This is just aggressive ignorance. It’s not a matter of opinion or dependent on ideology. It’s basic history and terminology.
an Iranian Monarch and Iranian Supreme Leader are just different titles for two different authoritarian Regimes
Precisely. They are different words which refer to different regimes (separated by a revolution). If you use them interchangeably you will confuse people.
Show me literally anyone else who refers to the Ayatollah as the Shah. Do an image search for “Shah of Iran” and look at the results.
Xi and Mao are/were leaders of the same regime (The PRC), so that comparison actually makes sense. What you’re doing is the equivalent of saying the emperor of China is the same as the president of the People’s Republic of China.
Both are authoritarians that had people killed over dissent.
They are identical.
Genghis Khan and Hitler were both authoritarians that had people killed over dissent.
Therefore, Genghis Khan invaded Poland in 1939 and put European Jews in concentration camps. They are identical.
I’m not talking about moral equivalence! You used the wrong term for the current head of state of Iran. Just learn and move forward, and stop acting like an arrogant ass when corrected.
I’m sorry if I sounded smug when I called out your initial error.
Authoritarianism isn’t a very good measure of government, when a monopoly on violence is one of the defining characteristics of a state. The difference is often more perception than it is reality, and even then tyrants can be vastly different from each other. Abraham Lincoln had Northern dissenters killed, and suppressed peoples rights, yet he was still a peak president.
Richard Nixon is the Shah. Saddam Hussein is the Shah. Modern Spain had death squads killing political opponents in my lifetime. Where isn’t lead by the Shah?
The people Mao killed outside of the 4 Pests Campaign deserved it, tbh.
Also insert quote from Engles “On Authority.”
Chiching Ping isnt his name, but that is hilarious
Its Xi Jinping
I don’t actually remember how to spell it because whenever I call him Winnie the Pooh it summons the CCP bot army calling that racist and I forget. Maybe this will be the time.
Only a foreign propaganda bot could think I am being racist!
Yeah but he’s yellow and built like a bear.
No, I’m not a reactionary. Why do you ask?
No, that’s just the hexbear part.
No other instance seems to do it.
Yeah I just call this Asian leader yellow so often that when I’m not calling him yellow I call him mr removed, I’m not racist btw
Man you guys really need to try new things. You damn well know it wasn’t because Winnie the Pooh is yellow. And you damn well know it was started in the real China anyway.
Yeah you’re really the best person to prove that this isn’t a racist thing, considering how extremely not racist you come across when you aren’t calling him a yellow cartoon character
Except it was intended to be racist because the meme was about Xi being Pooh and Obama being Tigger.
I knew that part, but why was Tigger racist for Obama?
Seriously? Think about what rhymes with Tigger. I’m starting to think you aren’t the best arbiter of what is or isn’t racist.
It is racist, you are racist
… and USA…
For decades, many left-leaning writers and speakers in the United States have felt obliged to establish their credibility by indulging in anticommunist and anti-Soviet genuflection, seemingly unable to give a talk or write an article or book review on whatever political subject without injecting some anti-Red sideswipe. The intent was, and still is, to distance themselves from the Marxist-Leninist Left.
Adam Hochschild, a liberal writer and publisher, warned those on the Left who might be lackadaisical about condemning existing communist societies that they “weaken their credibility” (Guardian, 5/23/84). In other words, to be credible opponents of the cold war, we first had to join in cold war condemnations of communist societies. Ronald Radosh urged that the peace movement purge itself of communists so that it not be accused of being communist (Guardian, 3/16/83). If I understand Radosh: To save ourselves from anticommunist witchhunts, we should ourselves become witchhunters.
Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being “smeared” as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations.
The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by “communist subversives” or “loyal American liberals.” All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent.
Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds, 1997.
Western chauvinists gonna chauvinist
Spreading the word far and wide. Did you just learn about this? This is 2 months old.
deleted by creator
yes those dirty brown people in south america can’t do socialism right when its being sieged by the US!
how telling of mr. mamdani.
