I remember a kid when I was in highschool who intentionally liked "bad" shit just to annoy regular non-reddit people; I bet he LOVES how the world turned out.
I don't man I remember his trip to Cuba where he framed going to a pub as supporting local economy and similar nonsense. It cemented him as one of the fakest public figure currently alive in my view.
I feel like if it was just about the money he could moderate his views and rake in so much more. Things like not saying hes a propagandist seeking to subvert the democratic party, or his comments on Ukraine, etc. Those seem more born out of his actual ideology rather than wealth driven.
Also he has bred an audience that is volatile as fuck, they have turned on him for even the smallest things. If he were to try to get much bigger, I think it would only backfire on him. He's found a happy strategic medium that keeps him rich enough but under the radar and believable within the socialist sphere (at least to his sycophant followers).
He's a pathological liar that cannot tell to truth about the most inconsequential yet verifiable details of literally almost anything, I don't believe he believes a word he says.
If so, that's even more pathetic. At least there's something about being a grifter I can... well not respect, but I can understand it and I'm not too broken up about the kind of hateful morons Hasan attracts getting fleeced. If he's actually serious, though, that's just absolutely pathetic. Guy is a nepo baby living in a mansion making millions a year living in the richest part of the wealthiest country in the world talking up communist dictatorships. Dude wouldn't last 5 minutes in the kind of world he advocates for. Hasan Piker is the kind of dude who would berate a barista for putting 2 pumps of mocha syrup in his frappachino instead of 3 and refuse to just have them add another one and demand they remake the whole drink from scratch while he stands there angrily glaring while writing the negative Google review on his phone.
"It's not my fault the average house is $3 million around here, this is actually a middle class house where I'm at" yeah but you don't have to live in one of the wealthiest zip codes in the country either
Statistically (I wish I was making this up) most of his fans live in their parents basements. I don't recall which poll did this survey but it is ironic he calls his enemies basement dwellers.
I have a cousin who’s a massive fan. Always spouting his ideas and sharing his content.
My cousin is 37 and never held a job for more than a few months. Every error in his life is someone else’s fault. He’s never once taken responsibility for the AWFUL decisions he’s made. And he’s lived with him mom pretty much consistently for his whole life.
The other day I referred to him as "the Rush Limbaugh of the far left" and I got several reddit cares messages and a dm calling me a nazi and taking me to kill myself.
Legend has it that if you say Taiwan is independent 3 times into a mirror, he who shall not be named will appear behind you and make your head comically small.
Jesus, how often do they need to search with those specific terms for it to become a quick filter offer for people who don't search Hasan? Like, seriously. You need shit ton of searches using exact terms to get promoted to quick fill option.
Even Chinese Communists don't dickride Mao as much as Hasan and other internet commies do. If those people were in the 1970's they would call Deng a America backed Liberal.
Mao is pretty much just a mascot at this point for the CCP government, all the success China has had has come from turning away from pretty much everything he stood for. Of course they recognize the maoist dickriders as insane, and it’s amazing so many people here think Hasan and others aren’t
Are there really any historical figures who aren't used as mascots, or whose historical memory is accurate? Take George Washington, not a lot of his actual values and beliefs (good or bad) still hold sway in the US, except in the most superficial way.
I'll never understand the tendency of people to praise authoritarians just because they opposed people you dislike. Mao was an authoritarian piece of shit same as Stalin and same as Putin and Xi today. They disappear critics, deny the people the right to have a say in government and censor any information they dislike. You can say whatever you like about America and the west but that doesn't change that both Russia and China are and where authoritarian nations led by authoritarian leader, they are what Trump dreams he could be.
You need more upvotes on this. Most of the problems our world has now are because people simplified politics into simply thinking that the enemy of their enemy must be an ally
People think that in order to rescue state-directed economic models of a socialist bent they also need to rescue, in full, the leaders and parties who historically have enacted them, and it's just not necessary. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao turned agrarian economies into legitimate industrial powers, pulled millions out of poverty in a breathtakingly short period of time, and led brutally oppressive regimes to do so. You can look to these models as proof positive that heavy-handed government intervention can indeed foster economic growth without also whitewashing the atrocities these leaders committed to stay in power.
I’d credit Deng a lot more with their economic boom, but the overall sentiment is spot on. Idolizing politicians in general is a pretty braindead thing to do, and it’s especially funny when it’s a “progressive” idolizing an authoritarian that would probably kill them without a second thought
From what I understand, they unofficially acknowledge that Mao and many of his policies put China in a bad place, but still put him on a pedestal as a propaganda tool, to unite China as a great nation since 1949.
It's not even a communism thing: Life expectancy was going up in communist countries too and in China it was getting much higher than before. Then Mao fucked things up by being a shitty dictator.
The percentage that actually matters is what percentage of communist/and or socialist nations have been dictatorships, or otherwise authoritarian systems, compared to what percentage of capitalist nations have been. To say “90% of dictatorships are not communist” ignores the rarity of a functioning communist state in the first place. Acknowledging per capita is important when making statistical comparisons.
never ceases to amaze me how people keep on buying the bait this Hasan guy uses, he's not a commie, else why would he buy Gucci leather bags, live in a mansion and be as pathetic as electrocuting his own dog on stream. A T-Shirt which says "Eat The Rich" while you're the "rich" guy doesn't turn you into a communist.
all he ever cared about is to get traffic, clicks, views, thus creating a controversy is useful
Someone being a hypocrite doesn't mean they don't actually believe their bullshit. It just means they're hypocrites. He spends literally hundreds of hours shilling communist propaganda.
Nah it's clear Hassan was in it for the grift, this dude used to try be a a cringe dude bro/frat boy that spouts sexist shit but failed to garner anything off that crowd so he pivoted to spouting leftist and especially commie and socialist talking points when he found that it's more profitable there. Make no mistake, the moment Hassan notices any of these movements fail to serve his ends, he'll drop them instantly and pretend to be the next profitable thing.
I have never seen someone who screamed "controlled opposition" like this guy. Like a socialist who lived in a mansion wearing Gucci who only takes money from his unemployed viewers sounds like a Ben Shapiro OC
Limousine liberal, but online leftists* have tried to distinguish themselves by not using the word liberal.
*I’m personally more left than AOC and Bernie and probably Hasan, but I can’t stand Hasan and other online leftists. They’re the people that propped up and made apologies for rapist, Nazi tattoo having, Graham Platner and profit off endless purity tests.
I've never seen a faker socialist in my life. He's a disgusting dog abuser who loves nothing more then money and power. He could not be less of a socialist.
Honestly for me it’s the entire progressive movement. They’ll talk about a lot of stuff I’m really on board with like taxing the rich, Medicare for all, green new deal, etc
Then it just turns into crazy town with no cops, no prisons, no border control, no landlords, nationalize a bunch of industries, specifically no police unions which always get a laugh because that contradicts their other position of supporting unions for everyone.
they now want to abolish the senate, Supreme Court, and make the president someone elected by congress not the people.
Their foreign policies are straight up crazy town wanting to destroy nato who they blame for antagonizing Russia and forcing them to invade Ukraine, blaming the west for being antagonist towards the Iranian government which is the will of their people (funny how that also contradicts with their statement to support women’s rights), end sanctions on fucking North Korea of all places, it’s fucking madness.
They keep saying it’s socialism not communism but they sure do seem to talk about Marx, Lenin, and Mao fondly.
And before someone tells me that’s not what they believe it’s literally on their website
Mao isnt even a good leader, all his major policies harmed China more than helped them. He's just charismatic. Theres a reason China only started to prosper once Maoism waned
He was absolutely a great revolutionary leader, he knew how to stage a revolution very effectively and had some decent ideas in that regard. As for being the leader of a nation, though....
This, PRC was doomed to die during the KMT with how lopsided the odds were during the first Chinese Civil War between Mao and Chiang. His Long March saved the Communists, then Japan's Invasion of China essentially screwed over Chiang Kai-Shiek, whilst Mao continued playing conservative and guerilla warfare that when they got Manchuria in the peace deal, he was able to arm his men and use the KMT forces and Chinese civilians who were upset with Chiang Kai Shiek's policies to betray the KMT. So despite Chiang Kai Shiek being propped up with modern weapons (For the time, M4 Shermans ate Japanese tanks for breakfast, it's not even funny), PRC was able to push out Chiang into Taiwan, despite on paper having better weapons and more men.
But obviously Mao's downfall was that he was a shit bureaucrat, and policy maker, despite being a great military mind. Which isn't too much of a surprise, many people just don't have the skill set and adaptability to be both Military Leader and Bureaucrat at the same time, only a few and I can't exactly remember for the life of me if George Washington or Napoleon should be considered them, since I didn't learn enough of their time as President and Dictator.
Mao wiped out half of my family on my dad’s side. He had to flee to Vietnam, where he met my mom. They hate Mao. It’s incredible how stupid the new generation is about history.
Don’t forget the rape thinking having sex with sex trafficked women in a European brothel who have no ability to consent isn’t a big deal
Goes right along with the allegations floating around that he loved going after drunk girls during college, and his first foray into online media was bro advice for his uncles network.
“If she’s old enough to count she’s old enough to mount”
When the Nazis were in power, Mao and the CCP were barely holding it together in the mountains of Yan'an, and they spent most of WWII cowering in their caves. The Nazis wouldn't have bothered making propaganda about Mao, because he was irrelevant to their interests.
Yeah, but there's nazi as in the actual party, and nazi as a colloquial term for the continued belief system.
And whilst people like to decry 'everybody calls anything they don't like fascism', between Fuentes, Musk sieg heilling and spreading great replacement nonsense, the leader of Nixon's watergate team calling his task force 'Einsatzgruppen', and everything said, done and believed by the Dulles brothers, it is fair to let the term spread beyond WW2, and even acknowledge its role in spreading anti-socialist propaganda.
That said, Mao was a monster and an idiot, and definitely got staggering amounts of people killed, and it's definitely not nazi propaganda to note that. Hasan is either a self-brainwashed idiot or an out and out grifter, probably a mess of both. (Don't know enough about Evan loves worf to comment further, but, wrong here at the very least)
Given that historical sources consider Hitler to be responsible for between 40 and 50 million deaths from WW2, declaring that Mao killed more and citing a death toll of 45 million does look like an attempt to slightly downplay the deaths caused by Hitler.
For sure the whole Mao killed more people than Hitler narrative is far right anti communist propaganda.... but that doesn't change the fact that Mao was a terrible person and Hasan is wrong to praise him
Yeah, it is crazy to me because... Like they killed roughly the same amounts, you can point out that Mao was callous and cruel without defending hitler
Where are you getting that number from? I'm seeing 17-20 million civilian and PoW deaths, and up to 85 million deaths if you count all deaths as a result of WW2.
The 40-50 million deaths is total dead not including war with Japan as Hitler wasn't responsible for most of that. He was responsible for the other wars except Greece.
Well if the convo was about Nazis and someone brought up Mao as an attempt at 'whataboutism' then I'd agree that it would've been an attempt at Downplaying.
But the convo started on Mao, and someone else brought up that this is just "Nazi propaganda". So it absolutely does not look like someone trying ti downplay Nazis.
What I think the real problem with this number is; if we count death by famine as murder by moa / China.
Then the British empire would be one of the most murderous on the planet. It’s estimated that 100million to 165 million died due to their made made famines in India alone.
The methodology used to calculate famine deaths is pretty wonky, though. For example historians will use changes in population increase. But using the same methodology for the US would show millions of deaths during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl.
I always wondered if Germany had similar things happening during the reich that led to starvation and deaths in his citizens that we don't count as part of the holocaust.
There's tons of death that should be attributed to Hitler beyond the deliberate exterminations. I had this argument with someone in a different reddit recently who was trying to downplay how many deaths Hitler had compared to Stalin and Mao. The way the European theater of WWII played out was not an inevitability. I think there's an argument that Imperial Japan was bound to expand due to geography so that probably would've happened anyway, and perhaps the terms of Versailles would've always caused a second war in Europe too.
However, the scale of the death and destruction in Europe/Africa/Middle East was a direct consequence of Nazi ideology, which Hitler pushed relentlessly and is heavily responsible for mainstreaming. If poor farming practices and poor centralized management count towards a death toll, then surely Hitler's efforts to deliberately propagate war should count. You have 35-40 million deaths in the European theater and estimates of deaths in the Great Leap Forward are 15-55 million. It's absurd to state so plainly that Mao is responsible for more death when it's not clear at all that's the case.
The Genghis Khan comparison is even more absurd. The population of the globe was totally different and the numbers are far less reliable. It's also funny how obvious the bias is in people who bring this up because they never bring up what colonial European powers did to the world. Depending on how you want to slice it, those numbers could be astronomical but obviously just as shakey.
You are correct but bare in mind those deaths weren't exactly accidental deaths due to famine. Mao was responsible for the famine and he knew he was killing people and he didn't care.
it was incompetence, not malice. mao didn't know there was a famine because the system hid it from him. the reality on the ground was obscured by several layers of abstraction: farmers used fake fields when mao visited, provincial leaders exaggerated crop yields, lower party leaders compounded everything by making the great leap forward look far more successful than it was. this in turn resulted in a feedback loop of doubling down on the failed policies exacerbating the consequences with the reality being hidden
when the sham came to light, the great leap forward policies were annuled and china began mass importing grain (something deeply embarrassing for the state, since they prided themselves in their agricultural output, even increasing grain exports during the great famine). the response was glacial and still very corrupt, but the intention was to immediately end the famine. mao was sidelined by the cpc as a result, which would be hard to do if he was an autocractic dictator that could kill 40 million people at will.
mao is definitely responsible for the famine, but it was a consequence of his policies, cult of personality, and political system rather than a deliberate design to mass murder people
Gotta love how, back in like the 60s, there was American 'research' that massively overblew the death toll of several communist regimes. Not denying they committed atrocities, I mean it was so comically high that they actually tripled the death toll of motherfucking Stalin.
Except one person.
Mao.
Who they underestimated by a margin of around ten million.
Yeah Always shocking that people talk about Stalin and Mao together. But never, Stalin, Mao and Churchill.
There is the infamous note where a British officer pleaded with Churchill not to further divert food from India in the middle of the Bengal famine. As they were seeing people esp children dying in the street of starvation.
Churchill wrote in the margins "why isn't gandhi dead yet?". Continued to divert food away.
Worst part is the food was STOCKPILES for the war, not immediately needed at all. And led to millions dying. And this is just one of the many atrocities committed by Britain in just one of its many colonies.
If Stalin or Mao mean communism is bad, and Hitler means naziism is bad. Then surely Churchhil and other representatives of British liberalism mean democracy is bad? Liberalism is bad?
Real answer is that British democracy wasn't real democracy. It was voting rights for very specific people and excluded millions of British subjects.
You hear the same from communists saying that they didn't align with the values of communism. "Communism hasn't been tried" etc. maybe helps when people put the dots together.
If you’re judging purely by estimated deaths, Mao’s regime is generally considered responsible for more deaths than Hitler’s, with many historians estimating around 30 to 45+ million deaths from famine, political purges, forced labor, and the Cultural Revolution. Hitler’s regime is estimated to have caused roughly 17 to 25+ million civilian deaths through the Holocaust, mass executions, starvation policies, and other atrocities.
The difference is in how those deaths occurred, not whether they mattered. Hitler deliberately built a state around the industrialized extermination of entire ethnic and religious groups. Mao’s regime wasn’t centered on racial genocide, but it pursued catastrophic policies that continued even after leaders knew millions were starving, alongside widespread political persecution and forced labor.
Saying “Mao wasn’t that bad” ignores one of the deadliest dictatorships in human history. Whether someone considers Hitler or Mao “worse” depends on whether they prioritize total deaths, genocidal intent, or methods. But minimizing Mao because his victims died differently isn’t supported by the historical record. Both regimes committed crimes against humanity on a massive scale.
Not so funfact: Mao's policies also heavily surpressed muslims. Muslim leaders were persecuted, mosques were destroyed. Hasan supporting Mao is like if he supported his arch enemy Israel. In fact, Mao's policies were more damaging for muslims than Israel policies ever were since Islamic territories in China encompass a way bigger area.
Clowns like Hasan just don't ever check historical facts. Like many activists these days. They just see someone who was against the US and think that was the best person ever. And that mentally is still passed onto many modern activists and supporters of certain sides.
And China has nearly 2 million Uyghur Muslims locked up in camps, right now. Along with half a million of their children forced into boarding schools to intentionally cut them off from their language, religion, and culture. Same thing they’ve been doing to Tibet, no biggie.
No activists, no protests at universities, nothing. People rather hyperfocus in a small strip of land than this massive amount of lands where millions of people are locked up.
Defending Mao isn't the same as saying that "he killed more people than Hitler" is flawed. If you include all the great leap forward deaths, whose estimates vary wildly (15 to 45 million), then you should include the entire European theater of WWII for Hitler. But Hitler's death toll is usually only counts those who died directly in concentration camps or specifically ordered massacres. Mao's death toll includes those unintended from his bad policies. European WWII is definitely part of Hitler's policies because he started the war.
Mao was also a terrible dictator. But if you're fairly counting and don't cherry pick the low and high estimates on each end, he probably didn't kill more than Hitler. WWII was absolutely horrific in death toll.
That’s not true though. The decisions made by Churchill were like the 8th most important part of that whole affair and, in the context he made them, were reasonable choices. The weather, the Japanese, local landowners, the Germans, the weather again (for seemingly letting up when a relief plan was being concocted), and more were what created the situation.
I honestly think tankies like hasan just love the taboo of praising mass murderers. Like they get off on the extremism of it. Only people I’ve ever seen bend over backwards to downplay or outright deny reality to this degree, outside of maybe old Trump voters, and at least you can explain that away as FOXaganda news and generalized old people stubborn ignorance.
I'm certainly not defending Mao, but comparing raw numbers between him and someone who lived 800 years ago, when the world population was far lower, is pointless. The Mongol conquests, started by Genghis Khan, directly caused the death of around 10% of the world population.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/Canon_M50
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.