Thoughts on human rights violations and dictatorships?

Firstly, what would you guys say about human rights? Do you think they are correct? (as in what they are, what they state, etc. Secondly, would you say human rights violations against political opponents in socialist countries were justified? Or do you think there weren't any human rights violations to begin with?
Lastly, regardless of whether you like certain socialist (or ex socialist) countries, would you agree with the generally accepted notion that they were all dictatorships, or perhaps just some of them in your opinion actually were dictatorships?

Attached: d67e0763263efaf2cb7fd271fbb8cffea89dd9bf7cf79f5ea432527bfe50c572.jpg (499x9428, 1.76M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Hznlp-DwgSw?t=279
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Human rights are a meme

I've seen this many times and still haven't figured out who this fucker on the bottom is supposed to be

My god

Total meme, excuse for warfare, etc…
Correct as in some of them are good.
What violations? I don't keep up with liberal memes. I can tell you that the USSR gave rights to millions that didn't have them.
No. Why would I agree with that? Stalin wasn't a dictator, there is no proof north korea isn't democratic. I don't know about Cuba or China though, you'd have to find someone else.

Marxist-leninist must be purged and worker direct democracy established.

Attached: face nope3424.png (473x403, 183.3K)

They are wrong. Not ethically, but realistically; they do not exist, even if it would be nice if they did.
Very contextual. A lot of deaths were avoidable, but many of them were due to bureaucratic incompetence on part of M-Ls and mautists (planned economics are not the same thing as command economics). In other cases, like Yugoslavia, the "human rights violations" were against people who were actual public threats. They were prosecuted, not persecuted.
Liberals and capitalists call any government they don't like a dictatorship. In the vast majority of cases, most of these countries had not become any less free after left wing revolution, and leaders like Sankara had objectively done more good than bad.
This general consensus is also hypocritical because right-wing authoritarians are tolerated as long as they sell their shit to the Western world. Of course, you get called an InfoWars schizo if you point out any of the sketchy shit the US has done overseas.

No-one willing to address that arbitrary detention, summary execution,, restrictions on the public expression of ideas and getting mutilated in an iron maiden are seen as bad things and states with "liberal memes" seem a lot less prone to doing those things.

Human rights violations are essential to actual socialist governance. Class enemies aren't just going to give up and go away.

Rights should be made obsolete. Rights only make sense in a context where there is a power that can abuse you. Make rights obese by flattening society.

Fuck no. As long as their relevant human rights are important.

Absolutely they have not been all dictatorships. There are plenty of examples of anarchist experiments as well as state socialist experiments. Not even all the state socialist experiments were dicatatorships in the common sense of the term (not the Marxist idea of class society being dictatorship of one class against the other, but a small group lording over everyone).

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (499x9428, 9.32M)

Fucking damn shitpost flag.

Go straight to liberalism, lad.

youtu.be/Hznlp-DwgSw?t=279
???
Give me a century straight of executing liberals willy-nilly, while constantly running propaganda ridiculing them, and I too will be able to show myself "playing nice" with whatever husk I leave in my wake.

Are all tänkies this far deep into denial?

Attached: 6b3e973e7c5f92dec74e06ec9e0ec12ee2d976c44ab7cf3f49ecb51f68a17ca8.jpg (400x225, 59.66K)

Socialism should embrace the legacy of the Enlightenment. Human rights is a valuable legal framework, as long as we understand they're ultimately little more than wishful thinking if they're not backed by real material forces.
No, be it only because most of the dissidents killed in nominally socialist states were socialist themselves — like when Stalin purged the Old Guard.
Nominally socialist states were usually authoritarian regimes for sure, and that factored in their eventual failure (downright collapse or market reform).

Only brain-ravaged tänkies believe "freedom isn't real lmao". Freedom from domination, oppression and exploitation for the worldwide masses is the end goal of socialism.

Attached: 8e48262cb970c1d9d04d090b737d688bde6888d259df96b69ce32b4040b631f6.jpg (500x529, 45.71K)

True but also this Stalin quote is amazing. Not that he remotely lived up to the hype.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (480x335, 259.92K)

Freedom from deprivation is the end of goal of socialism. Stop being a moronic liberal.

...

>

And how does the capitalist class deprive the proletariat from the fruits of its labor? Though class domination, political oppression and economic exploitation. This is an entry-level, self-evident fact and I suspect you have never read anything Marx ever wrote.
I believe you should avoid throwing the epithet "liberal" around every time you feel like there is a vague opportunity for it, that would help you not sound like a buzzword-spouting moron with no functioning sense of nuance and perspective.

Attached: 118d842fad24847093ce6f487ef5c332477547676b3656396f312a774f0d2530.jpg (612x612, 84.3K)

The US government left once they had successfully split the Communist bloc via China. They wouldn't have left otherwise. Boomer filth didn't do jack shit.

Attached: nixon.jpg (560x420, 34.14K)

The unpopularity of the Vietnam war factored in their decision to leave and hampered American imperialism in the process. Whine all you want about hippies, they actually did more for anti-imperialism than any of us here could pretend to.

...

Attached: kim jong il on human rights.jpg (2048x1154, 256.94K)

please can you elaborate on this?

Allende?